# New Dress Regs 🤣



## Fishbone Jones (16 Apr 2022)

This is going to be some funny shit when it's up and running.









						“More inclusive” military to permit face tattoos, fake nails, dyed hair on soldiers
					

A new draft plan by the Canadian Armed Forces to create a more “gender inclusive” dress code includes permitting men or women in uniform to don face tattoos, fake nails, jewelry and dyed hair while on service.




					tnc.news
				




More at Link


----------



## rmc_wannabe (16 Apr 2022)

This policy will change very little in my own life and appearance, as I personally have no desire to grow out my hair, dye it, pierce my ears, get a face tattoo, or start wearing a skirt.

That said, I am elated for the leagues of current and future troops that this will have a massive positive effect on. The changes I have seen in the past 15 years have all been "OMG NOOOO!!!!!" followed by a resounding "meh" 3 weeks after.

We didn't lose combat effectiveness when we incorporated women into combat roles in the 1980s.

We didn't lose our societal mores when we stopped discriminating against LGBTQ2IA+ soldiers from serving openly.

We didn't go soft when we no longer tolerated racist and bigoted behaviour after Somalia.

We didn't become feral with Reefer Madness in 2018 with WEEDFORGEN.

We didn't have a single soldier die in a CBRN attack on CFB Petawawa due to BEARDFORGEN.

We will be just fine.


----------



## Remius (16 Apr 2022)

New rules.  Will enforce them just like I enforced the last ones.  If people want pink hair and nose ring so be it. 

As always some will do it just to do it.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Apr 2022)

I think I'm going to get used to the phrase "Just because the dress regs say you can do that, doesn't mean you should."


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Apr 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> This is going to be some funny shit when it's up and running.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Apr 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> This policy will change very little in my own life and appearance, as I personally have no desire to grow out my hair, dye it, pierce my ears, get a face tattoo, or start wearing a skirt.
> 
> That said, I am elated for the leagues of current and future troops that this will have a massive positive effect on. The changes I have seen in the past 15 years have all been "OMG NOOOO!!!!!" followed by a resounding "meh" 3 weeks after.
> 
> ...


I'm sure we will. This isn't the first change we've been through. I have no expectation of it damaging our readiness or quality. But we all know, it's the minor, insignificant things that tend to bring the most controversy, splashed front page, every commentator following it. I don't care one way or another. I'm just looking forward to all the angst, upheaval and claims of doom that will follow it's initial release.  Usually, something that might be this controversial is reserved by the government when they need a deep distraction from something else. To find it going from idea to direction in such a short period of time is disturbing to me.

When did Pet have a CBRN attack that affected the whole base? No deaths, with everyone's respirators stowed away in their bug out kit? Was everyone equipped with a new, sealed in the pack, NBC suit?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Apr 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


>


I love his Podcasts!
Hotboxin' With Mike Tyson


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Apr 2022)

Remius said:


> New rules.  Will enforce them just like I enforced the last ones.  If people want pink hair and nose ring so be it.
> 
> As always some will do it just to do it.


No nose rings allowed. No face ornaments.

See, it's already started


----------



## brihard (16 Apr 2022)

Lol, this is gonna be great.

I suspect those most up in arms and butthurt about this will be those least relevant to our nation’s defence.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Apr 2022)

Its about time we did this.  

Now RCN beards back at sea, please.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Apr 2022)

brihard said:


> Lol, this is gonna be great.
> 
> I suspect those most up in arms and butthurt about this will be those least relevant to our nation’s defence.


The issue is fundamentally cultural.  The Military has its own culture and has been unable to adapt as quickly as modern society has.

The impact of this is that this will fudamentally impact the immediate readiness and capabilities of the Military in the short term.  It will be every bit as destructive as unification or the disbandment of the CAR was. 

The justification of this is longer term progress.  We will see how the organization balances this.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Apr 2022)

brihard said:


> Lol, this is gonna be great.
> 
> I suspect those most up in arms and butthurt about this will be those least relevant to our nation’s defence.



Que the howls from the long retired folks who served 6 months back in '65; they now type everything in caps lock, act like they are an expert on all defense related issues, and believe anyone born after them are weaklings...


----------



## Infanteer (16 Apr 2022)

Not sure how a beard or a dude with long hair will fundamentally impact the immediate readiness and capability in the short term.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Apr 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Que the howls from the long retired folks who served 6 months back in '65; they now type everything in caps lock, act like they are an expert on all defense related issues, and believe anyone born after them are weaklings...


Hey the Corps of Commissionaires resents that remark!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Apr 2022)

Infanteer said:


> Not sure how a beard or a dude with long hair will fundamentally impact the immediate readiness and capability in the short term.


The beard itself won't but people will leave the organization which is already happening due to the culture. That will impact numbers which will impact readiness.

It already has impacted readiness. Again though, if those people are seen as counter-productive to the institution long term, then the short term losses are justifiable.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Apr 2022)

@Infanteer in other words:

When has an institutional purge every improved immediate readiness in the short term?

There will be a transition period that will result in a temporary decline.  Did the CAFs readiness improve when they unified or disbanded the CAR?  Or was their a temporary decline?


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Apr 2022)

No face piercings?! This isn't inclusive it's tyranny.


----------



## Quirky (16 Apr 2022)

Still doesn’t fix the core issues of recruiting or retention, but at least I can go an extra week or two between haircuts. Probably save me $80-100 over the course of the year.


----------



## Remius (16 Apr 2022)

I would be more enthused by this if they had a second slide deck showing all the new gear we could be getting.  Look at how your new hand tattoo looks bad ass as you hold this new pistol.  And watch how your multiple ear rings sit so perfectly in the ear piece of this new radio set.  As well, your hair will flow in cool fashion as you launch a rocket from our new AT system.

Ah well.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Apr 2022)

Quirky said:


> Still doesn’t fix the core issues of recruiting or retention, but at least I can go an extra week or two between haircuts. Probably save me $80-100 over the course of the year.


How much do you wanna bet our members of Parliament receive letters from local barbers talking about their businesses being undermined by Government Policy 😁

Cue the commencement of the Great Canadian Barber Lobby 😁


----------



## brihard (16 Apr 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> @Infanteer in other words:
> 
> When has an institutional purge every improved immediate readiness in the short term?
> 
> There will be a transition period that will result in a temporary decline.  Did the CAFs readiness improve when they unified or disbanded the CAR?  Or was their a temporary decline?


What institutional purge? Some people may self-select out due to LOCKSFORGEN I guess, but I doubt many dinosaurs will be newly-meteored who weren’t already by BOOT/WEEDFORGEN, or the new culture wherein one keeps one’s appendages out of subordinates… do you really think _this_ will be a tipping point for many people, AND that those people will be particularly relevant?


----------



## Ostrozac (16 Apr 2022)

Armies throughout history have had long hair, beards, and even mandatory moustaches. These things change with the fashion of the times, and that’s all it really is, just fashion. If fashion was important to warfighting, there’d probably be a sponsored masters programme at the London College of Fashion for us all to compete for.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Apr 2022)

brihard said:


> What institutional purge? Some people may self-select out due to LOCKSFORGEN I guess, but I doubt many dinosaurs will be newly-meteored who weren’t already by BOOT/WEEDFORGEN, or the new culture wherein one keeps one’s appendages out of subordinates… do you really think _this_ will be a tipping point for many people, AND that those people will be particularly relevant?


Ask all the GOFOs who are out probably looking for work, most of which weren't removed for criminal offences.  We even stood up a new command focused on culture.

I agree with the changes btw, that doesn't mean this isn't a purge because it very much is.


----------



## brihard (16 Apr 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Ask all the GOFOs who are out probably looking for work, most of which weren't removed for criminal offences.  We even stood up a new command focused on culture.
> 
> I agree with the changes btw, that doesn't mean this isn't a purge because it very much is.


You’re talking above and beyond the new dress regs then, I gather.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Apr 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> No face piercings?! This isn't inclusive it's tyranny.









Also on the highly entertaining front...

Canadian Army: RCCS, you are not allowed to wear the Sigs flag as a tactical identifier patch on your CADPAT.

Also Canadian Army: RCCS, you can dye your hair into a Sigs flag but you better not wear that god-damned patch.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Apr 2022)

brihard said:


> You’re talking above and beyond the new dress regs then, I gather.


Yes but they are a part of the larger campaign.  It's a piece of the larger puzzle.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Apr 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Yes but they are a part of the larger campaign.  It's a piece of the larger puzzle.



And it's all looking pretty 'superficial' overall IMHO 

5 Signs Your Company Culture is Superficial​Businesses love to preach the importance of company culture, but how can you tell if your culture is real and sustainable?

Businesses love to preach about the importance of company culture, but many companies struggle with a disconnect between what they say and the reality of their own company culture.

_A joint study between the Fuqua School of Business at Duke University and Columbia Business School surveyed over 1800 CEOs and CFOs worldwide focusing on over 1400 from the United States and Canada. While more than 90 percent of respondents said that company culture was very important, just 15 percent said their own company culture “was exactly where it needed to be.”_

So how exactly can you distinguish between an authentic and a fake when it comes to company culture? What are the signs that your own business culture is in trouble, and how can leaders become genuine about company culture and make it stick with their teams? Read on to learn what you need to know about recognizing and combating a superficial company culture.
What is Company Culture?​“Company culture is often perceived as a set of values, the type of thing that is painted on the walls of the lobby in an office building,” says Catherine Spence, COO and co-founder of business culture management and analytics firm Pomello. However Spence points out that the true measure of culture is the behaviors that underpin those values. “If employees are not living those values through their day-to-day behavior then there is a high probability that those values are just lip service, and that there is, in fact, some other set of cultural norms operating within your organization.”
5 Signs of a Superficial Company Culture​#1 – Inconsistency​According to S.Chris Edmonds, executive consultant and author of Amazon bestseller, _The Culture Engine_, your company culture may be only skin-deep if the behavior of leaders and employees is at odds with the stated company values.

“A superficial culture is deeply inconsistent,” he says. “One of your company’s values might state ‘people are our most important asset,’ yet leaders dismiss, discount, and demean team members every day.”

Edmonds also says not linking consequences to unacceptable actions consistently suggests a weak company culture.
“A stated value might be “integrity,” yet people withhold information, don’t deliver what they promise, and poach customers from their peers – with no consequences to their actions.”

Fight inconsistency by enforcing consequences for behaviors that don’t reflect the core values underpinning your company culture. This requires coaching leaders and other team members on their behaviors, and disciplining those who continue to behave in ways that don’t align with your culture.

#2 – Too Many Core Values​If you see more than five core values listed in your annual report, it’s a sign that your company culture could become superficial – or that it already is.

“As the number of core values increases, the likelihood that a company is trying to be all things to all people increases,” says Spence. “Many companies fall into the trap of listing every value that sounds desirable, not realizing that they are diluting the message they are sending to employees about what is most important, and therefore diluting their culture.”

Fewer core values makes it easier for your team to identify and embrace behavior based on what your company deems important, creating an authentic company culture.  Review your core values with an eye to whittling down the list to the top three or four that most embody your company’s true philosophy.

#3 – Lack of Independent Decision Making​If your team has trouble making decisions without you, this could point to a superficial company culture.
When team members know the behavior that’s expected of them as employees of your organization, they’ll draw on their understood core values and company culture to guide their decision, leading to an outcome that best reflects the company.

“When employees are able to make decisions independently, it indicates that leadership has explained the strategic priorities of the team/company, and that employees understand how their core behaviors influence achieving those priorities,” explains Spence.
_*Related: *_Maintaining a Vibrant Company Culture: Why You Should Hire, Promote, and Terminate Based on Your Values
#4 – Rewarding Exceptions to Rules​Are there people in your organization whose questionable behavior gets overlooked and rewarded even if it doesn’t align with your core values? This could be a sign of a shallow company culture because you’re accepting behavior that doesn’t back up what you say your business stands for.
Accountability expert, keynote speaker, and author Linda Galindo says this behavior may show up in the “rock stars” of your company.

“[You may see it] in the form of top performers who are not held to the same requirements as everyone else on the team,” she says. And often this behavior is excused because of the results achieved.

Galindo says that these excuses may include statements like “He brings in more revenue so he can turn in his reports incomplete or late,” or “She does not have to attend meetings, she exceeds expectations and her team loves her.”

If this sounds like your organization, it’s time to revisit the rules with your managers and top performers to ensure their behavior aligns with company core values and culture.
#5 – Fragmented Culture​Fuzzy, incomplete, or wildly differing answers from your staff when asked about your company’s values and behavior is another sign your company culture isn’t getting soaked up the way it should.

“If you asked 15 to 20 people from across the organization what the most valued and rewarded behavior is, would you get two to three consistent answers? Or would you get 15-20 answers?” asks Spence. “If you get two to three consistent answers, that indicates that a consistent set of core values and priorities has been communicated and internalized across the organization.”

If you get more than a handful of answers, Spence says you could have a fragmented culture. This may result from inconsistency in communicating company values, or from having too many company values for team members to really embrace. So take it as another sign that it’s time to reduce the number of your company values and revisit or revamp company communication methods.
See how Zenefits’ HR software can help empower your company culture.
What’s The Solution to a Superficial Culture?​There’s no sugar-coating it. Combatting a superficial company culture takes work, and Galindo says it starts with the leaders of an organization.
“Leadership has to communicate, demonstrate, and give permission to [the] workforce to hold them accountable to living the values of the culture they expect,” she says.

So learn to identify the signs of a superficial company culture. Then you can work to strengthen your own.









						5 Signs Your Company Culture is Superficial
					

Businesses love to preach the importance of company culture, but how can you tell if your culture is real and sustainable?




					www.zenefits.com


----------



## Haggis (16 Apr 2022)

brihard said:


> What institutional purge? Some people may self-select out due to LOCKSFORGEN I guess, but I doubt many dinosaurs will be newly-meteored who weren’t already by BOOT/WEEDFORGEN, or the new culture wherein one keeps one’s appendages out of subordinates… do you really think _this_ will be a tipping point for many people, AND that those people will be particularly relevant?


For over 150 years we strived to emulate the dress and appearance of the two militaries we most wanted to be like, the British and Americans. At the same time we selectively eschewed items of dress for no good reason other than "it's not issued" (e.g. American rain jackets).  We shunned bling, assuming our actions would speak for us but then brought in useless and irrelevant badges and bows.

We are conflicted and confused on dress and appearance.  Finally, we're doing something truly Canadian, convening an inclusive dress policy.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Apr 2022)

This is one of my favourite parts. 



> Leaders are invited to discuss with their members (and) find a simple suitable accommodation


----------



## Booter (16 Apr 2022)

Finally with that tattoo policy I might be able to get back in 🤔


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Apr 2022)

Haggis said:


> For over 150 years we strived ro emulate the dress and appearance of the two militaries we most wanted to be like, the British and Americans. At the same time we selectively eschewed items of dress for no good reason other than "it's not issued" (e.g. American rain jackets).  We shunned bling, assuming our actions would speak for us but then brought in useless and irrelevant badges and bows.
> 
> We are conflicted and confused on dress and appearance.  Finally, we're doing something truly Canadian, convening an inclusive dress policy.


So what do we as taxpayers want from our military? 
Other than rescuing Canadians in times of crisis.


----------



## Furniture (16 Apr 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> This is one of my favourite parts.


i.e. "How much do you value you career?", or "Is your Pte's dumb clothing worth risking being accused of an "ism"?"


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> So what do we as taxpayers want from our military?
> Other than rescuing Canadians in times of crisis.





Haggis said:


> For over 150 years we strived to emulate the dress and appearance of the two militaries we most wanted to be like, the British and Americans. At the same time we selectively eschewed items of dress for no good reason other than "it's not issued" (e.g. American rain jackets).  We shunned bling, assuming our actions would speak for us but then brought in useless and irrelevant badges and bows.
> 
> We are conflicted and confused on dress and appearance.  Finally, we're doing something truly Canadian, convening an inclusive dress policy.


I see this going one of two possible ways:

We have a desire to be like the Scandinavians but is the culture our has Military been built on capable of adapting to that new culture?  Are we going to become like Norway?

Or are we going to go the way of the South African Defence Force and become our own version of "inclusive" at the expense of everything else?  Is Canada even capable of emulating Scandinavian model? 

It will be interesting to watch and see how this all plays out.


----------



## kev994 (16 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> So what do we as taxpayers want from our military?
> Other than rescuing Canadians in times of crisis.


Mostly something to be outraged about on a slow news day. Maybe the odd distraction.


----------



## Furniture (16 Apr 2022)

kev994 said:


> Mostly something to be outraged about on a slow news day. Maybe the odd distraction.


For about a week every Oct/Nov the CAF makes a convenient backdrop for pictures as well...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Apr 2022)

Remius said:


> I would be more enthused by this if they had a second slide deck showing all the new gear we could be getting.  Look at how your new hand tattoo looks bad ass as you hold this new pistol.  And watch how your multiple ear rings sit so perfectly in the ear piece of this new radio set.  As well, your hair will flow in cool fashion as you launch a rocket from our new AT system.
> 
> Ah well.


If the rocket launcher sets fire to your hair, it's to long.


----------



## Navy_Pete (16 Apr 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Its about time we did this.
> 
> Now RCN beards back at sea, please.


As long as someone doesn't have to wear an SCBA, no problem. That basically rules out the entire sea going crew though, and anyone on a normal alongside duty watch, so really not practical. This one will be covered under the 'unless operational requirements require being clean shaven'.

Basic safety issue that we've done actually testing to prove with our specific SCBA. Clean shaven, people are able to do 20 minutes+ no problem (the firefighters can actually get 45 minutes out of it, but takes a lot of specific practice  controlling breathing at high exertion).

With a day old stubble, dropped down to half that. Very quickly was below 5 minutes (ie essentially useless). Also, blows the seal, and allows stuff in. Positive pressure of the mask doesn't mean nothing gets in (and hot toxic smoke is also at a positive pressure), which we also demonstrated by actual testing.

For ref, we know people in real fires will get 10 minutes or sometimes less now even clean shaven, so we can't afford the drop, and no one wants to breath in hot toxic gas (even at small concentrations). Aside from carbon monoxide, most smoke is a giant toxic soup with things like hyrdogen cyanide, all kinds of acid gases etc involved.

CAF policy for SCBA is clean shaven, and that's to meet Canadian OSHA laws. RCN doesn't have authority to override that. C4 gas mask has similar requirements (for similar reasons) so it will be an operational requirement. Hopefully the RCN shows some institutional leadership and sends an accompanying message to reinforce that, as most people on ships have no idea what the relevant policies are.

Some ongoing discussions on religious accomodations to grow beards, but potentially means that person would not be able to fill most duty watch positions (which would be popular), and very few at sea positions. And in case anyone is curious, Sikh FFs etc generally just shave, and have a religious exemption, because no one wants their folks to die unnecessarily. 

(And no, don't care that beards were allowed with the old Chemox, or that other navies allow it. We can always lead on basic safety.)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Apr 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I see this going one of two possible ways:
> 
> We have a desire to be like the Scandinavians but is the culture our has Military been built on capable of adapting to that new culture?  Are we going to become like Norway?
> 
> ...



"Is Canada even capable of emulating Scandinavian model? 

Nope. We're too immature and stuffy. We'll need a complete cultural population culture shift. Husbands and wives are not going to be happy with spouses sharing coed showers, shitters and saunas on deployment or the hangar lines.

I served in Germany in 72. Hohne where we do gun camp, also housed the Dutch. Most were conscripts. Watched Dutch Leopard convoys on the ring road where every crewman looked like a Viking. Long flowing locks and beards flying out behind them. In 1972.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Apr 2022)

@rmc wannabe
I haven't  been able to find anything on the CBRN attack in Pet where there were no fatalities, that you mentioned. Can you point me to where you got your info?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (17 Apr 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> @rmc wannabe
> I haven't  been able to find anything on the CBRN attack in Pet where there were no fatalities, that you mentioned. Can you point me to where you got your info?


Perhaps you might find it in the same place I put my sarcasm; it's in the post? 💁‍♂️


----------



## Kilted (17 Apr 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Nope. We're too immature and stuffy. We'll need a complete cultural population culture shift. Husbands and wives are not going to be happy with spouses sharing coed showers, shitters and saunas on deployment or the hangar lines.


Fortunately spouses do not dictate military policy, as much as some wives think that they wear their husbands rank. I'm pretty sure that women would still be in the position they were in during WWII if military wives had anything to o with it. While I can't see co-ed anything coming around in the near future, there probably would be some advantages to it. 

If anything we have probably moved further away from it. We definitely saw less mixed generdered sleeping arrangements after the start of Op Honour. To be honest, it some cases I think that they actually hurt unit cohesion and the inclusion of women.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (17 Apr 2022)

Ostrozac said:


> Armies throughout history have had long hair, beards, and even mandatory moustaches. These things change with the fashion of the times, and that’s all it really is, just fashion. If fashion was important to warfighting, there’d probably be a sponsored masters programme at the London College of Fashion for us all to compete for.


Those things went the way of the dodo in the trenches of Flanders nothing to do with fashion. 

Short hair kept lice and other hygenic issues from developing in the trenches. It also prevents hair from being caught in rotating equipment (a potential issue for maintainers). Being clean shaven (or only having a moustache) was due to the recently invented need to wear gas masks as they were fighting in chemical warfare. This is the origin of those regulations and what actually spurred the fashion post-war with so many returning soldiers being already used to shaving they just kept going with it. 

We are slacking up on it again but we also haven’t been in a peer to peer war since Korea. If we were the regs would likely be going the other way, I know I wouldn’t be going around Ukraine without some CBRN equipment.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Apr 2022)

Kilted said:


> Fortunately spouses do not dictate military policy, as much as some wives think that they wear their husbands rank. I'm pretty sure that women would still be in the position they were in during WWII if military wives had anything to o with it. While I can't see co-ed anything coming around in the near future, there probably would be some advantages to it.
> 
> If anything we have probably moved further away from it. We definitely saw less mixed generdered sleeping arrangements after the start of Op Honour. To be honest, it some cases I think that they actually hurt unit cohesion and the inclusion of women.


Of course spouses don't.🙄 However they do vote. And there is no doubt, many service people, would leave the CAF, before leaving their spouse. Feel free to prove your hypothesis, if you wish. It's not necessary though.
Did the new mandatory training not become the standard, replacing Op Honour which was instituted by a deadbeat dad who was found guilty of obstruction? If it doesn't,  it should. Every policy he has his name on, should be reviewed, brought up to date, renamed and signed by the new authority. Personally, I think anything with his name be searched for Somalia Inquiry style and box it up for that warehouse at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Meh. Getting carried away. Blood pressure still good.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Apr 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> As long as someone doesn't have to wear an SCBA, no problem. That basically rules out the entire sea going crew though, and anyone on a normal alongside duty watch, so really not practical. This one will be covered under the 'unless operational requirements require being clean shaven'.
> 
> Basic safety issue that we've done actually testing to prove with our specific SCBA. Clean shaven, people are able to do 20 minutes+ no problem (the firefighters can actually get 45 minutes out of it, but takes a lot of specific practice  controlling breathing at high exertion).
> 
> ...



Listen, take all your knowledge and schooling and sciency big words and get them out of the way of my unreasonably deep emotional attachment to my beard.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Apr 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Of course spouses don't.🙄 However they do vote. And there is no doubt, many service people, would leave the CAF, before leaving their spouse. Feel free to prove your hypothesis, if you wish. It's not necessary though.
> Did the new mandatory training not become the standard, replacing Op Honour which was instituted by a deadbeat dad who was found guilty of obstruction? If it doesn't,  it should. Every policy he has his name on, should be reviewed, brought up to date, renamed and signed by the new authority. Personally, I think anything with his name be searched for Somalia Inquiry style and box it up for that warehouse at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark.
> 
> Meh. Getting carried away. Blood pressure still good.


This comment wins the internet today. The entire thing is so ridiculous it's almost comical 🤣


----------



## Navy_Pete (17 Apr 2022)

@Halifax Tar You'd just be surprised how often this comes up, and how many different people try and run around it. I like my beard too, but it's pretty hard to argue with the test results, so I just shave when I might have to mask up.

Was recently inferred that I was racist, anti-religious or generally intolerant (was a bit unclear who they thought I was discriminating against) for being opposed to religious accomodations/medical chits for beards with SCBA.  I don't care if they get either or, just don't want anyone to get hurt, and we had a number of near misses already, so you can't plan on letting someone where a beard with an SCBA and go do firefighting.

The RCN: We want to make evidence based decisions!

Also the RCN : We don't agree with your evidence, and....uh tradition!

In this case it's not even in their swimlane to make the call (which is good) but always fun telling a GOFO it's not in their authority to do something.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Apr 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> @Halifax Tar You'd just be surprised how often this comes up, and how many different people try and run around it. I like my beard too, but it's pretty hard to argue with the test results, so I just shave when I might have to mask up.
> 
> Was recently inferred that I was racist, anti-religious or generally intolerant (was a bit unclear who they thought I was discriminating against) for being opposed to religious accomodations/medical chits for beards with SCBA.  I don't care if they get either or, just don't want anyone to get hurt, and we had a number of near misses already, so you can't plan on letting someone where a beard with an SCBA and go do firefighting.
> 
> ...



I'm not surprised how much this comes up at all.  It's been a bone of contention since it was taken away from us. 

On a more serious note how do Navies like the RN get around it ?


----------



## Navy_Pete (17 Apr 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I'm not surprised how much this comes up at all.  It's been a bone of contention since it was taken away from us.
> 
> On a more serious note how do Navies like the RN get around it ?


No one has a workaround; if other navies are fire fighting with beards they are 'accepting the risk' (which is easy to do when you aren't the one on the frontline and it's theoretical). There just isn't a good way to get a seal unless it's in direct contact with skin.

We know there is a significant impact on the effectiveness of the SCBA, to the point where it renders people useless for any firefighting activities. We also know that stuff will get into the mask when they don't have the seal, and if there isn't short term health impacts, all of that has long term impacts. And if someone in bunker gear goes down in a fire, extraction and rescue places everyone else at risk as well, so it's not even just the individual in danger.

I don't think it really matters what other navies do; we know it's an unnecessary risk that could get sailors killed, so why mess around? We already are rolling the dice with the reduced crews and poor material states.

We have several incidents a month, and a major fire every few years (which will increase as the fleet ages). We also have far smaller crews then we used to, so we really can't afford to have a large number of people unable to respond to fires (or hazmat spills). Each major fire we've had includes numerous people almost running out of air before getting out of the smoke filled zones, so pretty easy to see someone run out of air completely and becoming a casualty if we start allowing facial hair with SCBA.

And generally the people that won't be donning SCBA are in leadership positions, so IMHO, it would be BS for them to get beard waivers. Similarly, if someone gets some kind of religious accommodation for beards that means they can't do basic duty watch functions, and that increases everyone else's rotation, can't see how that will not result in some serious issues.

Honestly glad this one falls under ADM(IE) as the OPI for the CAF Regulatory Protection Program (RPP). Otherwise the RCN would do something stupid and likely kill people.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Apr 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> No one has a workaround; if other navies are fire fighting with beards they are 'accepting the risk' (which is easy to do when you aren't the one on the frontline and it's theoretical). There just isn't a good way to get a seal unless it's in direct contact with skin.
> 
> We know there is a significant impact on the effectiveness of the SCBA, to the point where it renders people useless for any firefighting activities. We also know that stuff will get into the mask when they don't have the seal, and if there isn't short term health impacts, all of that has long term impacts. And if someone in bunker gear goes down in a fire, extraction and rescue places everyone else at risk as well, so it's not even just the individual in danger.
> 
> ...



I'm not debating that the safety of the crew needs to be put first.   But if the RN had a work around it might be worth investigating.  

If it's just an assumption of risk then I'm not sure we need to travel down that route.  But we sure seem ok with command assuming all kinds risks. 

I remember near the the end of CHEMOX we use to have to carry a razor in our war bags if we had a beard. 

You're point about religious exemptions WRT duty watches is interesting.  I think we are seeing an up tick in utilization of that loop hole.  Agreed, if you can't wear SCBA you shouldnt be on ships and if you can't be posted to a ship one should have to find a new place to work away from HFX or ESQ.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Apr 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> No one has a workaround; if other navies are fire fighting with beards they are 'accepting the risk' (which is easy to do when you aren't the one on the frontline and it's theoretical). There just isn't a good way to get a seal unless it's in direct contact with skin.



Gas masks are the same. As I recall we ruthlessly enforced shaving, even in the arctic, partially for that reason.

Regardless, it's nice to see that we're willing to sacrifice for our fashion statements these days


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Apr 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Gas masks are the same. As I recall we ruthlessly enforced shaving, even in the arctic, partially for that reason.
> 
> Regardless, it's nice to see that we're willing to sacrifice for our fashion statements these days



I've done many a gas hut with my beard and never had an issue.  Remember our gas masks were designed during the heady times of pioneer beards.


----------



## Underway (17 Apr 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Those things went the way of the dodo in the trenches of Flanders nothing to do with fashion.
> 
> Short hair kept lice and other hygenic issues from developing in the trenches. It also prevents hair from being caught in rotating equipment (a potential issue for maintainers). Being clean shaven (or only having a moustache) was due to the recently invented need to wear gas masks as they were fighting in chemical warfare. This is the origin of those regulations and what actually spurred the fashion post-war with so many returning soldiers being already used to shaving they just kept going with it.
> 
> We are slacking up on it again but we also haven’t been in a peer to peer war since Korea. If we were the regs would likely be going the other way, I know I wouldn’t be going around Ukraine without some CBRN equipment.


This is a tempest in a teapot.  When it's operationally a safety or hygiene issue then the lower leadership is within their rights to amend the dress regulations for those reasons. 

For example that beards are still not allowed on the ship.  This policy is due to safety concerns regarding being able to properly wear fire fighting equipment.  One could easily implement short hair if you deal with rotating equipment all the time if the simple solution of tying your hair back properly is too hard for people.

Operational dress and base dress are always different.  If you're on base friggin wear what you want (within the Dress Policy of course).  Operationally if there is a good reason you wear what you are told to.


----------



## Navy_Pete (17 Apr 2022)

@Lumber My point was it's a known safety issue, and that the lower leadership has already demonstrated that they don't have the necessary understanding of the RPP (units can't maintain the position, and most people have no idea it exists). This is one item lost by the removal of 651 FFs from the fleets, and the expertise not carrying over to Martechs when we got rid of HTs.

In this case, CRCN should demonstate some institutional leadership and provide clear guidance to the fleet so that it doesn't fall down to lower leadership to figure it out on their own, but not holding my breath.


----------



## Underway (17 Apr 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I've done many a gas hut with my beard and never had an issue.  Remember our gas masks were designed during the heady times of pioneer beards.


Yes because the gas hut is full of irritant dust particles not an actual gas.  Chlorine/mustard gas would be sucked right past your beard hairs and into your lungs.  As would viral agents.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Apr 2022)

Underway said:


> Yes because the gas hut is full of irritant dust particles not an actual gas.  Chlorine/mustard gas would be sucked right past your beard hairs and into your lungs.  As would viral agents.


I think we should switch to CS Grenades.  Nothing encourages the digging of shell scrapes, or in this case, the shaving of beards, like effective incoming fire 😁


----------



## Underway (17 Apr 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I think we should switch to CS Grenades.  Nothing encourages the digging of shell scrapes, or in this case, the shaving of beards, like effective incoming fire 😁


Mmm, digging a shell scrape while puking due to CS.  Sounds like the army!


Navy_Pete said:


> @Lumber My point was it's a known safety issue, and that the lower leadership has already demonstrated that they don't have the necessary understanding of the RPP (units can't maintain the position, and most people have no idea it exists). This is one item lost by the removal of 651 FFs from the fleets, and the expertise not carrying over to Martechs when we got rid of HTs.
> 
> In this case, CRCN should demonstate some institutional leadership and provide clear guidance to the fleet so that it doesn't fall down to lower leadership to figure it out on their own, but not holding my breath.


Last town hall I was at an LS asked about beards at sea and where the policy comes from.  The CRCN said as long as he is in that position that's the policy because he wasn't willing to accept that risk.  Now, this may be a case of not pointing fingers (good leadership, I hate leadership by default) or it might be the CRCN has made it his policy based on other organization regs.  Either way, I think everyone can agree the discussion ended there.  Roger out sir, I'll grab my razor.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (17 Apr 2022)

Underway said:


> This is a tempest in a teapot.  When it's operationally a safety or hygiene issue then the lower leadership is within their rights to amend the dress regulations for those reasons.
> 
> For example that beards are still not allowed on the ship.  This policy is due to safety concerns regarding being able to properly wear fire fighting equipment.  One could easily implement short hair if you deal with rotating equipment all the time if the simple solution of tying your hair back properly is too hard for people.
> 
> Operational dress and base dress are always different.  If you're on base friggin wear what you want (within the Dress Policy of course).  Operationally if there is a good reason you wear what you are told to.



The argument train as you fight could come into play here. As the Russians are showing, poor training=dead troops. If your always practicing the best standards that's one less thing you have to worry about when the bullets start flying.

Personally I don't really care what the regulations are as long as they are the same for everyone. That means no religious exemptions, racial exemptions, sex based exemptions, etc.. If one troop is allowed a turban every troop should be allowed a turban. If one troop is allowed a ponytail every troop should be. If Females are allowed earrings everyone should be. Etc. The fact there hasn't been a charter challenge on sexism, racism, or discrimination based off religion to our dress regs at this point is surprising.


----------



## Underway (17 Apr 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> The argument train as you fight could come into play here. As the Russians are showing, poor training=dead troops. If your always practicing the best standards that's one less thing you have to worry about when the bullets start flying.
> 
> Personally I don't really care what the regulations are as long as they are the same for everyone. That means no religious exemptions, racial exemptions, sex based exemptions, etc.. If one troop is allowed a turban every troop should be allowed a turban. If one troop is allowed a ponytail every troop should be. If Females are allowed earrings everyone should be. Etc. The fact there hasn't been a charter challenge on sexism, racism, or discrimination based off religion to our dress regs at this point is surprising.


I'm not seeing the disconnect you are.

I'm posted to a ship. It's an operational environment.  I shave.  I'm posted to a field unit and go into the field I'll follow whatever operational safety/hygiene rules that exist.  Training how you fight is related to equipment rather than whether I have purple hair and ear spacers.  "Best standards" relate to TTP, doctrine, and equipment. If the purple hair is causing a problem then training will demonstrate why and give me an opportunity to mitigate that problem.  So next time I'll make it CADPAT colored and tuck most of it under my helmet.


----------



## Kilted (17 Apr 2022)

Underway said:


> I'm not seeing the disconnect you are.
> 
> I'm posted to a ship. It's an operational environment.  I shave.  I'm posted to a field unit and go into the field I'll follow whatever operational safety/hygiene rules that exist.  Training how you fight is related to equipment rather than whether I have purple hair and ear spacers.  "Best standards" relate to TTP, doctrine, and equipment. If the purple hair is causing a problem then training will demonstrate why and give me an opportunity to mitigate that problem.  So next time I'll make it CADPAT colored and tuck most of it under my helmet.


I'm waiting for people to start dyeing designs and pictures into it.  I wonder how long it will be until the traditional items start to show up?


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Apr 2022)

Underway said:


> Yes because the gas hut is full of irritant dust particles not an actual gas.  Chlorine/mustard gas would be sucked right past your beard hairs and into your lungs.  As would viral agents.


Sarin and other lethal agents as well. The use of CS is to ensure your drills are correct and give you confidence in yourself and the equipment.

In 1986 we put an orthodox Sikh through basic. We could not get his respirator to seal correctly. 

Beards are ok in garrison but if there is a CBRN threat….


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Apr 2022)

Growing beards should be banned since its not inclusive as some members can't grow beards.

It's a macroaggression and skinphobic.


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Apr 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Growing beards should be banned since its not inclusive as some members can't grow beards.
> 
> It's a macroaggression and skinphobic.


Dermophobia. The pain is real.


----------



## brihard (17 Apr 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Growing beards should be banned since its not inclusive as some members can't grow beards.
> 
> It's a macroaggression and skinphobic.


By that logic I want the rest of you pricks to shave your heads.


----------



## Haggis (17 Apr 2022)

brihard said:


> By that logic I want the rest of you pricks to shave your heads.


Everyone?  I'm down with that.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Apr 2022)

Haggis said:


> Everyone?  I'm down with that.
> View attachment 70162


Y’all deserve a slap for that! 😆


----------



## Underway (17 Apr 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Y’all deserve a slap for that! 😆


Beat me to it. I was gonna post something like "Jada?"


----------



## Weinie (17 Apr 2022)

Underway said:


> Beat me to it. I was gonna post something like "Jada?"


Where there is a Will, there is a way.


----------



## Weinie (17 Apr 2022)

Weinie said:


> Where there is a Will, there is a way.


Just getting Jiggy with it.


----------



## gryles (17 Apr 2022)

So what we thinking about the new regs?  I don’t know much about True North as a source. 

MCpl I’m friends with said he’s growing his hair out and dyeing it neon pink lol.


----------



## brihard (17 Apr 2022)

gryles said:


> So what we thinking about the new regs?  I don’t know much about True North as a source.
> 
> MCpl I’m friends with said he’s growing his hair out and dyeing it neon pink lol.



I’m out, so my opinion doesn’t matter anyway, but a solid ‘meh’ from me. Some people will end up looking like idiots, but that’s on them. Many more will be able to have a slightly greater sense of individuality, in a way that won’t hinder operations. As long as the troops get on with the work when it’s there to be done.


----------



## Remius (17 Apr 2022)

Look.  If anyone wants to see what our military will look like with these new regs just watch Mad Max Fury Road.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Apr 2022)

gryles said:


> So what we thinking about the new regs?  I don’t know much about True North as a source.
> 
> MCpl I’m friends with said he’s growing his hair out and dyeing it neon pink lol.


It's the same as most. Other sources have also posted the slidedeck


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Apr 2022)

gryles said:


> So what we thinking about the new regs?  I don’t know much about True North as a source.
> 
> MCpl I’m friends with said he’s growing his hair out and dyeing it neon pink lol.



Much a do about nothing if you ask me.  

The hair regs have been bogus for ever. 

I don't expect to see big changes.  Longer hair sure.  Maybe some diff colors but meah.  It's all a big nothing burger to me.


----------



## Furniture (17 Apr 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Much a do about nothing if you ask me.
> 
> The hair regs have been bogus for ever.
> 
> I don't expect to see big changes.  Longer hair sure.  Maybe some diff colors but meah.  It's all a big nothing burger to me.


It will be like BEARDFORGEN, people will go a bit crazy at first, then settle into what they are comfortable with. 

Look at how many people started a beard because they were allowed to grow one, then realized that it had it's drawbacks and shaved. That said, if the new regs allow for 3-4 day growth, I'll be investing in a nice trimmer, and ditching the razor until I need to shave for operational reasons.


----------



## Quirky (17 Apr 2022)

People will colour their hair and grow it to whatever lengths out of rebellion and attention rather than personal identity. Plus they’ll look like idiots with pink hair anyway.


----------



## Remius (17 Apr 2022)

Quirky said:


> People will colour their hair and grow it to whatever lengths out of rebellion and attention rather than personal identity. Plus they’ll look like idiots with pink hair anyway.


That phase will happen in the first few weeks then will calm itself when things become normal.


----------



## SupersonicMax (17 Apr 2022)

Quirky said:


> People will colour their hair and grow it to whatever lengths out of rebellion and attention rather than personal identity. Plus they’ll look like idiots with pink hair anyway.


So?


----------



## KevinB (17 Apr 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> @Halifax Tar You'd just be surprised how often this comes up, and how many different people try and run around it. I like my beard too, but it's pretty hard to argue with the test results, so I just shave when I might have to mask up.
> 
> Was recently inferred that I was racist, anti-religious or generally intolerant (was a bit unclear who they thought I was discriminating against) for being opposed to religious accomodations/medical chits for beards with SCBA.  I don't care if they get either or, just don't want anyone to get hurt, and we had a number of near misses already, so you can't plan on letting someone where a beard with an SCBA and go do firefighting.
> 
> ...


You can get non flammable jelly and seal the SCBA - that is what some folks down here who are attached to their beards do when doing mandatory SCBA refreshers.


----------



## Navy_Pete (17 Apr 2022)

I used to have long hair, it was a pain in the ass, hard to keep clean and I don't miss it. I'm sure some folks will find out that it's just a lot easier to have short hair, but I do appreciate having the option (at least in the winter). Similarly facial hair is okay in the winter, but drives me nuts when it gets warm out, but will like having the option to have a goatee and/or sideburns.

Some people will go nuts, most won't really care one way or the other, and if someone has a bit of fun dyeing their hair or messing around with their style who cares? It's still pretty easy to keep things neat and tidy and look professional if you just do some proper grooming.

Facial tattoos are still job limiting though, so hopefully people give that a bit of thought ahead of time if they ever want to get a job outside the military, but really that is a personal problem.

My only concern is that people that should know better will leave it up to lower level units to figure out he 'operational requirements' bit instead of giving clear direction, and folks will get hurt as a result. For the Navy, should be pretty straightforward that if you are on a ship not in the dock and you may be responding to a fire, you need to be clean shaven, but from firsthand experience a lot of people will play silly games and try and Philadelphia lawyer their way around it. The folks at the working level that get dragged into it have way too much to do as it is, so it will waste a lot of people's time if there isn't some kind of NAVFORGEN to clarify things.

@KevinB that doesn't work when you start moving around and sweating; the testing we did was both at rest, and then working (I think on a treadmill) to see what happens when you are moving around and sweating. If it gets hot enough to start releasing flammable vapours things have gone wrong anyway, but that's something to pass a check in the box instead of a safe option in the real thing.

 Lot of variability by people's face shape, hair coarseness, facial hair density, length etc but no one managed to keep a seal when working in SCBA after a few days growth. Some were okay on the at rest test, but everyone failed the working portion, which is where you'd actually be exposed to the toxic fire gases (which can be superheated).

People that lose a seal will run out of air fast. At best, you retreat to a safe area, which means that whatever you were tasked to do with is delayed and someone else has to do it. Maybe that means a fire burns longer, gets bigger, and puts everyone at risk. Worse case, you become a casualty in the space, your wingers try and get you out, and whatever you were tasked to do is still not happening. Ships are tight quarters, with small openings, nearly vertical stairs and no good way to get someone out, so you put both yourselves, your winger, and everyone else at risk. Unless someone comes up with some kind of hood that seals somewhere other than the jawline, requiring shaving as an operational requirement for anyone that needs an SCBA is really a no-brainer.


----------



## Underway (17 Apr 2022)

KevinB said:


> You can get non flammable jelly and seal the SCBA - that is what some folks down here who are attached to their beards do when doing mandatory SCBA refreshers.


You can, still not approved for use.  Just like personal tac vests and non-issue ballistic eyewear.


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Apr 2022)

KevinB said:


> You can get non flammable jelly and seal the SCBA - that is what some folks down here who are attached to their beards do when doing mandatory SCBA refreshers.


Plus, it's a great justification for buying the costco sized jug of silicone lube. Or so I've heard.


----------



## Underway (17 Apr 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Plus, it's a great justification for buying the costco sized jug of silicone lube. Or so I've heard.


Keep one beside every emergency escape hatch, for those of us who regularly double duff.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Apr 2022)

I haven't seen the slideshow. Under this new policy can:

A male wear a deu skirt when required to wear deus; and

Can a male dye their beard all kinds of colours too?


----------



## mariomike (17 Apr 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> acial tattoos are still job limiting though, so hopefully people give that a bit of thought ahead of time if they ever want to get a job outside the military, but really that is a personal problem.



Well said.






						Can an employer prohibit tattoos and piercings? - Stewart McKelvey
					

By Peter McLellan, QC In the 1970s the issue for employers was long hair and sideburns. In the 1980’s it was earrings for men. Today the employer’s concerns are with tattoos…




					www.stewartmckelvey.com
				






> The answer on *hiring* is simple and straightforward – an employer can legally choose not to hire based on any (visible) tattoos or piercings.





> The situation is more complicated *after* an employee has been hired. Here the employer’s rights differ greatly depending on whether it is a unionized workplace or a non-union workplace.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Apr 2022)

I believe the slide deck says yes to wearing a skirt. Don't  know about the beard, but it's just hair anyway, so why not.


----------



## MilEME09 (17 Apr 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I believe the slide deck says yes to wearing a skirt. Don't  know about the beard, but it's just hair anyway, so why not.


I mean highlanders wear skirts anyway, so why not the rest of us? #shotsfired


----------



## Furniture (17 Apr 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I haven't seen the slideshow. Under this new policy can:
> 
> A male wear a deu skirt when required to wear deus; and
> 
> Can a male dye their beard all kinds of colours too?


I suspect the rules about what footwear you need to wear with the skirt will prevent guys from doing it for a laugh. Women can't wear ankle boots with the skirt now, so I doubt ankle boots with skirts will be allowed when the new rules come out. If a bunch of guys want to buy pumps and learn to walk in them for the "entertainment" of wearing a skirt, all the more power to them. I'm sure if/when they get the reaction they wanted they will go right back to trousers. 

Whatever the new rules will be, there will still be rules about what can be worth with what, and when it can be worn.


----------



## Haggis (17 Apr 2022)

Unusual grooming practices and personal appearance features are generally maintenance intensive. The novelty of multicoloured beards and garish hairstyles will wear off quickly for those new to them.


----------



## lenaitch (17 Apr 2022)

As an outsider, but coming from a police service, interesting development.  My reaction would be similar to my reactions when police services started allowing beards, earrings, tattoos and the like, and reflected my generation - I didn't like it.  I have this notion that professions should look, well, . . . professional, that cops shouldn't look like bikers, but fully realizing that my preferred image is pretty much undefinable.   However, I recognize that, at the time, concerns that our constituency - rural and small town residents who actually pay the bills - would not accept the changes, did not happen in any significant way.

I suppose my bottom line is that the image being projected shouldn't be the individual's, it should be the organization that they are very visibly representing, and if the organization is okay with it, then fine.  I have my doubts that it will increase recruiting, but I guess that remains to be seen.

Will the public care?  Considering that, outside of the media and typically on certain 'ceremonial days, the vast majority of the population never encounters a member of the CAF, I doubt they will notice, with the exception of vets.  The one exception may be those ceremonial events.  Purple hair and tats may be a tougher sell in ceremonial dress, standing guard at the Tomb or being eye-candy at a photo-op with the PM, than in day-to-day uniform.

I do have a few of concerns:
 - The notion of interpretation being driven down to lower leadership does strike me as a cop-out.  If a lower level makes a call that doesn't get supported up the chain, they will likely make that mistake once, and if they don't feel supported, may just say 'screw it' to many matters of dress and deportment.  The OPP has (or at least had) rules that beards must closely shaven and hair must be a natural colour.  Members looking like ZZ Top and purple hair on a senior commander pretty much negated the effectiveness of every policy point.

-  With finer detailed interpretations being driven down, does it create problems with members passing judgement on appearance matters of the opposite sex?  It sounds like every local interpretation will have to be accompanied by a treatise on it operational impact.

-  I do have a problem with facial tattoos.  The significance of the 'human visage' in human interaction is hard-wired into out brains, and we have no cultural history related to facial tattoos unlike, say, New Zealand.  The whole idea of 'appropriate' visible tattoos strikes me as problematic.  I await the debate on whether the bearer of a swastika is a Nazi sympathizer or channeling an ancient middle-eastern religion.  Besides, if you get a tattoo that is later ruled as inappropriate, isn't it a little late?


----------



## KevinB (18 Apr 2022)

Most folks I know aren’t using SCBA for fires — they have sealing hoods too…
  If the seal goes bad for a Bio/Chem issue - it’s RFB (and not return to base)

The sealing hood also helps in blast issues - because of an explosion etc breaks a seal - your DOA. 

Regardless of beard or not - I would that thought ship board firefighting kits would be a two level seal mask and hood - as burning ships tend to have the occasional explosion.


----------



## brihard (18 Apr 2022)

Underway said:


> You can, still not approved for use.  Just like personal tac vests and *non-issue ballistic eyewear.*


Invalid comparison; there are specific ANSI and CSA standards that different glasses are tested to and which are empirically validated. Shaved vs jellied beards in SCBA is not comparable to Revision Sawfly vs Oakley M Frame ‘just because’.


----------



## gryles (18 Apr 2022)

Any word or predictions on if this will change the piercing policy? Would be cool to get a small stud somewhere 

Also, do you think this will be limited to OFP?


----------



## mariomike (18 Apr 2022)

​


lenaitch said:


> Will the public care? Considering that, outside of the media and typically on certain 'ceremonial days, the vast majority of the population never encounters a member of the CAF, I doubt they will notice, with the exception of vets. The one exception may be those ceremonial events. Purple hair and tats may be a tougher sell in ceremonial dress, standing guard at the Tomb or being eye-candy at a photo-op with the PM, than in day-to-day uniform.



Maybe it will help get more people  in, and encourage others to stay in.   🤷‍♂️


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Apr 2022)

This is really where COs, RSMs and the CoC need to set an example. You know that principle “lead by example” .


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> This is really where COs, RSMs and the CoC need to set an example. You know that principle “lead by example” .



Not that you're wrong but in what context ?


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Apr 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Not that you're wrong but in what context ?


Not growing a huge beard. Keeping hair a reasonable length. That sort of thing. I know y’all wanna look like USN SEALs but…


----------



## SupersonicMax (18 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> This is really where COs, RSMs and the CoC need to set an example. You know that principle “lead by example” .


I think COs, RSMs and the CoC have a lot more to gain from leading by example in the context if work ethics, excellence in your job and other more substantial areas of their professional lives than attempting to influence subordinates to adhere to an arbitrary standard of professional appearance that the CoC deems acceptable that is above and beyond the published standard.  I don’t care that little Joe has long blue hair with a weekend beard and long fake nails.  I care that they do their job effectively and efficiently.


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Not growing a huge beard. Keeping hair a reasonable length. That sort of thing. I know y’all wanna look like USN SEALs but…



I'm looking forward to long hair.  I'm already pushing boundaries.  The rest of it doesn't mean much to me. 

Our hair regs became ridiculous when women were let to do the same jobs.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> I think COs, RSMs and the CoC have a lot more to gain from leading by example in the context if work ethics, excellence in your job and other more substantial areas of their professional lives than attempting to influence subordinates to adhere to an arbitrary standard of professional appearance that the CoC deems acceptable that is above and beyond the published standard.  I don’t care that little Joe has long blue hair with a weekend beard and long fake nails.  I care that they do their job effectively and efficiently.



Ok I’m a bit old school and yes I agree with what you say to an extent however dress and deportment is somewhat important too. Wearing kit properly and using for what it was intended for is important.


----------



## SupersonicMax (18 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Ok I’m a bit old school and yes I agree with what you say to an extent however dress and deportment is somewhat important too. Wearing kit properly and using for what it was intended for is important.


FTFY.  Blue hair won’t prevent someone from wearing kit properly.


----------



## KevinB (18 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> FTFY.  Blue hair won’t prevent someone from wearing kit properly.


Might stop someone else from it while they wretch though.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> FTFY.  Blue hair won’t prevent someone from wearing kit properly.


You’re correct but somehow I think blue hair will not be the norm but the exception. 

I haven’t seen a copy of the message or whatever they sent out. I’m not too too fussed about this.


----------



## Underway (18 Apr 2022)

brihard said:


> Invalid comparison; there are specific ANSI and CSA standards that different glasses are tested to and which are empirically validated. Shaved vs jellied beards in SCBA is not comparable to Revision Sawfly vs Oakley M Frame ‘just because’.


Because every standard we have is based on performance instead of proscription*.     The military hasn't proscribed that equipment, therefore it's a valid comparison on that basis.  No argument that one is based on a recognized tested performance basis by the CAF vs a new technology that hasn't been tested for CAF use yet.

*that wasn't a shot, it was more frustration from my day job!


----------



## stoker dave (18 Apr 2022)

Some of my work is at large construction sites.  If there is a chemical hazard at that site (e.g. remediation of historic waste), workers may be required to wear respirators, SCBA or similar.   No beards are permitted. 

So it is one thing to tell a group of soldiers or sailors they have to be clean-shaved.  Telling a bunch of 6'4" 350 lb construction workers who look like they belong in a biker gang that they have to remove their beards is a whole other kettle of worms.  (Yes, they complained.  Yes, they complied.)


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I don’t care that little Joe has long blue hair with a weekend beard and long fake nails.  I care that they do their job effectively and efficiently.



Agree about just being able to do ones job effectively. 

Can I do my job effectively if I'm a young officer being sent to a middle eastern country as a liason and I look like a drag queen though? 

It's one thing to rock blue hair and fake nails in a Cold Lake POL shed. How would that translate working with the USAF?  Or Saudi Arabia?

The people at ADR are going to be busy dealing with complaints when members are told to dye their hair for operational reasons.


----------



## kev994 (18 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> This is really where COs, RSMs and the CoC need to set an example. You know that principle “lead by example” .


You want them to be the first with purple hair and face tattoos?


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Apr 2022)

kev994 said:


> You want them to be the first with purple hair and face tattoos?


As long as the face tats are done by a Māori using the traditional method.


----------



## SupersonicMax (18 Apr 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Agree about just being able to do ones job effectively.
> 
> Can I do my job effectively if I'm a young officer being sent to a middle eastern country as a liason and I look like a drag queen though?
> 
> ...


According to the presentation, there will be operational requirements caveats, which could apply in some situations.

Working with the USAF? I don’t think it’d be a problem at all…

Why should we restrict hair color and what not because in some situations, some people may be required to have a more neutral apparence?


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> According to the presentation, there will be operational requirements caveats, which could apply in some situations.



That was an intelligent caveat to include for sure. It will be interesting to see if and how that gets abused at home but over all it should mitigate a lot of potential issues. 



> Working with the USAF? I don’t think it’d be a problem at all…


Fair enough. Never met someone from the USAF. 



> Why should we restrict hair color and what not because in some situations, some people may be required to have a more neutral apparence?


 

Personally I don't consciously care how someone looks but also know it can impact someone's work in terms of how their peers, subordinates, superiors and especially outside agencies treat them. 

We can say "so what, not our problem" but that's an over simplistic view because it can be a problem. 

On the other hand maybe we'll be leaders in inclusion and diversity, and other western nations will follow our lead and relax their grooming and dress standards. 

Having an ability for our CAF members to adapt/adopt a host countries grooming standards (beards in the ME, long hair in Norway, fake nails for Ibiza) is really smart.


----------



## Quirky (18 Apr 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> On the other hand maybe we'll be leaders in inclusion and diversity, and other western nations will follow our lead and relax their grooming and dress standards.



Doubtful, other western nations have more pressing matters on their hands and that's actual national defense because of Putin. We relaxed fitness standards and are relaxing dress/appearance standards to get people through the door and it's not working. Overall we are an aimless and bored military with nothing to do but come up with creative ways to act busy. Some of the social media comments on this topic (not true north) have been pretty negative towards this change. It seems like the public is starting to realize we need guns and bullets, not nails and hair dye.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Apr 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> That was an intelligent caveat to include for sure. It will be interesting to see if and how that gets abused at home but over all it should mitigate a lot of potential issues.
> 
> 
> Fair enough. Never met someone from the USAF.
> ...


So what you're saying is....

The Great Charles Taylor was ahead of his time?



We aren't leading the way in anything.  The NPFL beat us to the punch by a couple of decades!






						National Patriotic Front of Liberia - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




I can't wait to wear a life jacket in to battle. 🤣


----------



## Remius (18 Apr 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I can't wait to wear a life jacket in to battle. 🤣



Given the state of our equipment I would say soonish.


----------



## brihard (18 Apr 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I can't wait to wear a life jacket in to battle. 🤣


Isn’t that literally your job?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Apr 2022)

brihard said:


> Isn’t that literally your job?


Nah!  If I'm wearing a life jacket, I've failed my job 😁


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Apr 2022)

Quirky said:


> Doubtful, other western nations have more pressing matters on their hands and that's actual national defense because of Putin. We relaxed fitness standards and are relaxing dress/appearance standards to get people through the door and it's not working. Overall we are an aimless and bored military with nothing to do but come up with creative ways to act busy. Some of the social media comments on this topic (not true north) have been pretty negative towards this change. It seems like the public is starting to realize we need guns and bullets, not nails and hair dye.



Aimeless, perhaps.  Bored ?  You're in the wrong service my friend.  The East and West coast fleets are flat the F out.  

You want something to do like deployments and travel ?  Come join the RCN we will send you on deployments and travel until you cry uncle, and even then we won't stop.


----------



## Haggis (18 Apr 2022)

kev994 said:


> You want them to be the first with purple hair and face tattoos?


I recall a few years ago hearing a story/legend/rumour about a LCol (apparently) who showed up for work with bright yellow hair in challenge to a NDHQ directive stating that hair could only be dyed in naturally occurring colours and was roundly chastised for it.  He argued that yellow was "a naturally occurring colour" followed by "don't make stupid rules and then ask me to enforce them".


----------



## Haggis (18 Apr 2022)

Quirky said:


> We relaxed fitness standards and are relaxing dress/appearance standards to get people through the door and it's not working.


Really?  I've been out for almost four years now. Did the FORCE test get easier?


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Apr 2022)

Haggis said:


> I recall a few years ago hearing a story/legend/rumour about a LCol (apparently) who showed up for work with bright yellow hair in challenge to a NDHQ directive stating that hair could only be dyed in naturally occurring colours and was roundly chastised for it.  He argued that yellow was "a naturally occurring colour" followed by "don't make stupid rules and then ask me to enforce them".



lol Promote that person!



Haggis said:


> Really?  I've been out for almost four years now. Did the FORCE test get easier?



No.  Some people just like to complain.


----------



## Quirky (18 Apr 2022)

Haggis said:


> Really?  I've been out for almost four years now. Did the FORCE test get easier?


It’s hardly a metric for testing fitness, it was brought in purely because the old test was too hard and there were too many failures.



Halifax Tar said:


> Aimeless, perhaps.  Bored ?  You're in the wrong service my friend.  The East and West coast fleets are flat the F out.
> 
> You want something to do like deployments and travel ?


I get motion sickness pretty easily, plus steaming around on old rusty boats doesn’t seem like a good time. I’d be happy with a tool box, an aircraft and issued cot for 6 months.


----------



## Remius (18 Apr 2022)

Quirky said:


> It’s hardly a metric for testing fitness, it was brought in purely because the old test was too hard and there were too many failures.
> 
> 
> I get motion sickness pretty easily, plus steaming around on old rusty boats doesn’t seem like a good time. I’d be happy with a tool box, an aircraft and issued cot for 6 months.


The old test was not harder.  The issue is that it was a poor indicator of what was required.  It was gender and age based which was absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Apr 2022)

Quirky said:


> It’s hardly a metric for testing fitness, it was brought in purely because the old test was too hard and there were too many failures.
> 
> Care to support that position or is it just an uniformed opinion ?
> 
> ...





Remius said:


> The old test was not harder.  The issue is that it was a poor indicator of what was required.  It was gender and age based which was absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## Haggis (18 Apr 2022)

Quirky said:


> It’s hardly a metric for testing fitness, it was brought in purely because the old test was too hard and there were too many failures.


No, in fact it was brought in because the old test was out of date, no longer relevant and  was gender, and age weighted.   There's a huge thread on it here.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Apr 2022)

Haggis said:


> No, in fact it was brought in because the old test was out of date, no longer relevant and  was gender, and age weighted.   There's a huge thread on it here.


So at risk of a further derailing, we replaced it with a modern test thats significantly easier and is still weighted by age and gender...


----------



## Haggis (18 Apr 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> So at risk of a further derailing, we replaced it with a modern test thats significantly easier and is still weighted by age and gender...


Unless it's changed significantly since I retired (and I was one of the FORCE test lab rats), the FORCE test was never weighted by age or gender.  You either completed the task in the time allotted or you didn't, regardless of gender, rank, age MOSID or DEU.


----------



## SupersonicMax (18 Apr 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> So at risk of a further derailing, we replaced it with a modern test thats significantly easier and is still weighted by age and gender...


The pass/fail criteria are the same for all.  The incentives are based on where your score relates to people within your age group within your gender category.  Given there is absolutely no advantage in doing more than pass (other than get a T-shirt and a pin), can’t say the test is weighted by age and gender…


----------



## Haggis (18 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> The pass/fail criteria are the same for all.  The incentives are based on where your score relates to people within your age group within your gender category.  Given there is absolutely no advantage in doing more than pass (other than get a T-shirt and a pin), can’t say the test is weighted by age and gender…


Okay... that's new.


----------



## btrudy (18 Apr 2022)

Furniture said:


> I suspect the rules about what footwear you need to wear with the skirt will prevent guys from doing it for a laugh. Women can't wear ankle boots with the skirt now, so I doubt ankle boots with skirts will be allowed when the new rules come out. If a bunch of guys want to buy pumps and learn to walk in them for the "entertainment" of wearing a skirt, all the more power to them. I'm sure if/when they get the reaction they wanted they will go right back to trousers.


Under the current rule women can wear Oxfords with their skirts, so that's an option for guys who don't want to buy pumps to wear with the skirts. Personally I'm considering doing it merely because the "reaction" I want is to not sweat my arse off when I'm working in a building that has grossly inadequate AC during the summer. 


Furniture said:


> Whatever the new rules will be, there will still be rules about what can be worth with what, and when it can be worn.


Indeed, the main thrust of the new rules seems to be "if it doesn't cause a safety issue, go ahead and wear it".

This to me seems quite logical. The purpose of the CAF is to bring violence to the enemy; if a rule isn't helping you do that, get rid of it.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Apr 2022)

Haggis said:


> Unless it's changed significantly since I retired (and I was one of the FORCE test lab rats), the FORCE test was never weighted by age or gender.  You either completed the task in the time allotted or you didn't, regardless of gender, rank, age MOSID or DEU.


It started that way, then they weighted it. At one point, you even got more PER points based on your score. Now it's basically to win a Hoodie and a pin.

Despite the junk prizes, the test is still weighted. Take your score, flip the gender and see where you land. That's weighting by gender, regardless of the semantics.


----------



## SupersonicMax (18 Apr 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> It started that way, then they weighted it. At one point, you even got more PER points based on your score. Now it's basically to win a Hoodie and a pin.
> 
> Despite the junk prizes, the test is still weighted. Take your score, flip the gender and see where you land. That's weighting by gender, regardless of the semantics.


The pass/fail criteria, the ones you need to hit to meet UoS are NOT gender/age weighted.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Apr 2022)

Which is a semantic argument, if the levels above pass fail don't matter, they shouldn't exist. When they do exist, it means the test results are weighted by age and gender.


----------



## brihard (18 Apr 2022)

If I understand right there’s the FORCE test for everyone, but then additionally the FORCE Combat for some/all of the army or something like that?


----------



## Remius (18 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> The pass/fail criteria, the ones you need to hit to meet UoS are NOT gender/age weighted.


Exactly.


----------



## SupersonicMax (18 Apr 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> Which is a semantic argument, if the levels above pass fail don't matter, they shouldn't exist. When they do exist, it means the test results are weighted by age and gender.


The incentive levels were brought in to motivate people to do more than the bare minimum.  The idea is that if you are trying to do more than the minimum, you’d train for it and hopefully live a healthier lifestyle.  They are meant to… incentivize.  They don’t matter in term of standards.


----------



## Underway (18 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> The pass/fail criteria are the same for all.  The incentives are based on where your score relates to people within your age group within your gender category.  Given there is absolutely no advantage in doing more than pass (other than get a T-shirt and a pin), can’t say the test is weighted by age and gender…


One incentive is that one of the advanced promotion criteria is based on getting a minimum Bronze (or Silver depending on the Formation Commander).  And there are certain score cut-offs you need to keep for specific trades IIRC like Clearance Diver (or maybe they have a different test... I'm not sure anymore).  But generally no.  Just pass the thing any way you can.

I was flipping through Twitter as one does and saw a video of a young woman gunner for a Ukrainian SPH.  Sparkle lip gloss, long nails with chipped sparkle nail polish just fucking givin'er. Load fire load fire load fire.  Smile a mile wide as she's doing it.  Blows a kiss to the camera after the fire mission is done.  Legend.


----------



## RangerRay (18 Apr 2022)

We might be fine with the new standards, but people who pay taxes and vote may have other ideas.

From a survey a few years ago on changes to RCMP grooming standards.  People didn’t like Mounties with man-buns, face tats or ear hoops.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-man-bun-tattoo-survey-1.4612725


----------



## btrudy (18 Apr 2022)

Meh. They're paying us to do a job, they're not paying us to look pretty while doing so. Even if they might have certain preferences with regards to appearance, that doesn't oblige us to cater to them.


----------



## Weinie (18 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> Meh. They're paying us to do a job, they're not paying us to look pretty while doing so. Even if they might have certain preferences with regards to appearance, that doesn't oblige us to cater to them.


Ummmmmmmm..................................no. Check out Public Opinion Research, which PMO lives and dies for, and which within we (Canada) gets guided (politically led).


----------



## Furniture (18 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> Under the current rule women can wear Oxfords with their skirts, so that's an option for guys who don't want to buy pumps to wear with the skirts. *Personally I'm considering doing it merely because the "reaction" I want is to not sweat my arse off when I'm working in a building that has grossly inadequate AC during the summer.*


I suspect you will find the issued skirt no more comfortable, but if that's your plan have at it. I also strongly suspect you're in the minority of the males "planning" to try the new rules out. 

People will push the limits of the rules because that's what people do, and they  usually do it to get a reaction. I keep my sideburns at exactly the maximum length allowed because I prefer the look, and it annoys the "high and tight" crowd. 



btrudy said:


> Indeed, the main thrust of the new rules seems to be "if it doesn't cause a safety issue, go ahead and wear it".
> 
> This to me seems quite logical. The purpose of the CAF is to bring violence to the enemy; if a rule isn't helping you do that, get rid of it.



I have a feeling things won't be as much of a free-for-all as some are hoping. I bet the silliness of toques only with gloves, and other fun rules will exist still. It seems to be more about removing gendered rules, and some outdated fashion choices, than it is about removing rules altogether, based on the leaked information.


----------



## Haggis (18 Apr 2022)

Furniture said:


> I bet the silliness of toques only with gloves, and other fun rules will exist still.


It's been discussed here at length and some people_ still don't get it_.  If you wear a toque without gloves, *people die*.


----------



## kev994 (18 Apr 2022)

Underway said:


> And there are certain score cut-offs you need to keep for specific trades IIRC like Clearance Diver (or maybe they have a different test... I'm not sure anymore).  But generally no.  Just pass the thing any way you can.


I’m somewhat familiar with the dive manual as it applies to SARTechs (I supervise a bunch of them), as of a couple months ago it still refers to the Expres test as the fitness standard. FWIW SARTech went to the FORCE test a few years ago.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Apr 2022)

Furniture said:


> I have a feeling things won't be as much of a free-for-all as some are hoping. I bet the silliness of toques only with gloves, and other fun rules will exist still. It seems to be more about removing gendered rules, and some outdated fashion choices, than it is about removing rules altogether, based on the leaked information.



Insightful. I agree about the free-for-all. One thing I've learned is CoC's often treat people quoting policy as a personal insult. They're quick to pull out the "Oh ya?!" and "Is that right?!" guns. Then shit gets real. The gloves and toque crowd won't be able to compute long hair and will need to punish people for it.


----------



## Furniture (18 Apr 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Insightful. I agree about the free-for-all. One thing I've learned is CoC's often treat people quoting policy as a personal insult. They're quick to pull out the "Oh ya?!" and "Is that right?!" guns. Then shit gets real. *The gloves and toque crowd won't be able to compute long hair and will need to punish people for it.*


Unfortunately I think you're right, and they will find ways to do it. We have so many rules that it's pretty easy to be breaking a rule at some point each day.


----------



## SupersonicMax (18 Apr 2022)

Furniture said:


> Unfortunately I think you're right, and they will find ways to do it. We have so many rules that it's pretty easy to be breaking a rule at some point each day.


I think the effect will be the same as when we introduced weed and beards.  Essentially not much in the long run.


----------



## Furniture (18 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> I think the effect will be the same as when we introduced weed and beards.  Essentially not much in the long run.


Over the long run I agree, the people who really object to the changes will likely get out, and post about how "soft" the CAF is on social media every day. 

My worry is more about the damage to morale a few people can do in the short term. A "dinosaur" in a position of authority can make life pretty miserable while a redress is going through.


----------



## Kilted (18 Apr 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> I mean highlanders wear skirts anyway, so why not the rest of us? #shotsfired


As women are not currently permitted to wear skirts in Scottish regiments, I can't see this changing for men.  As for everyone else, I guess, as long as they aren't on parade.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Apr 2022)

Furniture said:


> A "dinosaur" in a position of authority can make life pretty miserable while a redress is going through.


25-30 year old officers can be much worse.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> I think the effect will be the same as when we introduced weed and beards.  Essentially not much in the long run.


FWIW I tend to think most will say "yah ok whatever" and do what they do. Grow the hair a bit longer but that's about it.

There WILL be a few who want to push it. Like pretty much anything else.


----------



## Weinie (18 Apr 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Insightful. I agree about the free-for-all. One thing I've learned is CoC's often treat people quoting policy as a personal insult. They're quick to pull out the "Oh ya?!" and "Is that right?!" guns. Then shit gets real. The gloves and toque crowd won't be able to compute long hair and will need to punish people for it.


It's going to be"fun." Glad I am soon to be out of it (May 31st) though I am not sure I would ever be "into it."


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Apr 2022)

Weinie said:


> It's going to be"fun." Glad I am soon to be out of it (May 31st) though I am not sure I would ever be "into it."


Three words. Shall. May. Should.

There are certain things a CO shall do, certain things they may do and certain things they should do.

I suppose a CO “May” institute a dress policy unit wide…


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Apr 2022)

There may be an initial period of lunacy, but then people will come to their senses. As well, there will always be those who like to find exactly where the edge of the envelope is. In the end, an organic basic standard will emerge.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Apr 2022)

Unarmed combat will get some new moves. Airplaneing somebody around by their hair sounds intriguing.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Apr 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Unarmed combat will get some new moves. Airplaneing somebody around by their hair sounds intriguing.



Or setting fire to it with a fag lighter.... I've had some interesting troops to deal with in my time


----------



## Booter (19 Apr 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> 25-30 year old officers can be much worse.


Too easy to default to authority


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Apr 2022)

Kilted said:


> As women are not currently permitted to wear skirts in Scottish regiments, I can't see this changing for men.  As for everyone else, I guess, as long as they aren't on parade.



Trained soldiers, who happen to be male or female or some other personal choice or gender, are permitted to wear the kilt.

At least that was the case a couple of years ago out here in the West.


----------



## QV (19 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> The incentive levels were brought in to motivate people to do more than the bare minimum.  The idea is that if you are trying to do more than the minimum, you’d train for it and hopefully live a healthier lifestyle.  They are meant to… incentivize.  They don’t matter in term of standards.


Are the incentive levels implying that all genders are not equal?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Apr 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Trained soldiers, who happen to be male or female or some other personal choice or gender, are permitted to wear the kilt.
> 
> At least that was the case a couple of years ago out here in the West.


The fact that Trews were allowed and even encouraged, means that the Scottish units should have no say in Dress Regulations.


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Apr 2022)

QV said:


> Are the incentive levels implying that all genders are not equal?


I think it has been scientifically demonstrated that males perform better than females, and and younger people are generally more fit than older folks. 

I used the word “gender” but I should have used the word “sex.”


----------



## Kilted (19 Apr 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Trained soldiers, who happen to be male or female or some other personal choice or gender, are permitted to wear the kilt.
> 
> At least that was the case a couple of years ago out here in the West.


Yes, they wear the kilt, therefore they cannot wear the skirt.


----------



## Kilted (19 Apr 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Trained soldiers, who happen to be male or female or some other personal choice or gender, are permitted to wear the kilt.
> 
> At least that was the case a couple of years ago out here in the West.


Yes, they wear the kilt, therefore they cannot wear the skirt


Colin Parkinson said:


> The fact that Trews were allowed and even encouraged, means that the Scottish units should have no say in Dress Regulations.


The rank level that they are authorized for seems to change on a regular basis. Also, they are at the members expense, and you're probably looking at anywhere from $300-500.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Apr 2022)

Kilted said:


> Yes, they wear the kilt, therefore they cannot wear the skirt
> 
> The rank level that they are authorized for seems to change on a regular basis. Also, they are at the members expense, and you're probably looking at anywhere from $300-500.



My experience has been that those who are at the rank level that is authorized to wear Trews are seldom the right people to show them off in a complimentary manner


----------



## RangerRay (19 Apr 2022)

I once saw a Seaforth sergeant wearing trews in DEU once. It was fugly.


----------



## AirDet (19 Apr 2022)

Sorry I'm late to this conversation, but I don't see these regulations harming us in any way. I doubt we'll see the extremes very often on parade and if we do, who cares. I care much more about a soldier's competence than his/her appearance.


----------



## Haggis (19 Apr 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> The fact that Trews were allowed and even encouraged, means that the Scottish units should have no say in Dress Regulations.


Go big or go home.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Apr 2022)

Kilted said:


> Yes, they wear the kilt, therefore they cannot wear the skirt


Can't have Kilts and skirts in the same parade, otherwise small children might ask: "What is the difference?"


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Apr 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Trained soldiers, who happen to be male or female or some other personal choice or gender, are permitted to wear the kilt.
> 
> At least that was the case a couple of years ago out here in the West.


Our Highland Unit here has both male and females in kilts.


----------



## dangerboy (19 Apr 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Can't have Kilts and skirts in the same parade, otherwise small children might ask: "What is the difference?"



Also, current dress regulations do not allow skirts to be worn on parades. I have no idea if this will change or not with the new regulations, but here is what the regulations currently state: "Women may wear the No. 3 order alternative skirt with No. 1A order of dress when not on parade and when strict uniformity is not ordered, according to the occasion for wear."


----------



## Kilted (19 Apr 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Our Highland Unit here has both male and females in kilts.


Yes, that's how it's been for a long time. I said that women in Scottish regiments were not allowed to wear skirts. That's because they were wearing kilts already. 

Also, somewhat of a pet peeve of mind, while all Highland regiments are Scottish regiments, not all Scottish regiments are Highland regiments.


----------



## FJAG (19 Apr 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> My experience has been that those who are at the rank level that is authorized to wear Trews are seldom the right people to show them off in a complimentary manner


It is quite amazing how the parallel lines of the pattern on the trews emphasize the non parallel lines of those who wear trews.

😁


----------



## Quirky (19 Apr 2022)

AirDet said:


> Sorry I'm late to this conversation, but I don't see these regulations harming us in any way. I doubt we'll see the extremes very often on parade and if we do, who cares. I care much more about a soldier's competence than his/her appearance.



I think both appearance and competence matter, along with maintaining a professional attitude and conduct. Maybe it's too much to ask these days.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Apr 2022)

FJAG said:


> It is quite amazing how the parallel lines of the pattern on the trews emphasize the non parallel lines of those who wear trews.
> 
> 😁



I've heard the phrase 'contour lines' used to good effect with respect to the 'rounder' members


----------



## Gunnar (20 Apr 2022)

Quirky said:


> I think both appearance and competence matter, along with maintaining a professional attitude and conduct. Maybe it's too much to ask these days.


While appearance shouldn’t matter, I think history shows it does.  If your unit looks like a bag of crap, people will see it and think “that unit is a bag of crap”.  Who wants to be part of the Crap Bag Regiment?  Further, in the “fake it till you make it department”, looking in the mirror like a badass trained killer in Her Majesty’s service, may make you more inclined to do the work/change the attitude necessary to actually make it true.  I may not be James Bond in my tux, but damned if I’m not going to try to be suave, cultured and debonair while I’m looking that good.

Note the weasel words:  “may”.  There are still plenty of people who lie to themselves and think if they wear the same clothes as their heroes that they become their heroes.  “Look at me:  I’m Rambo!”.  This isn’t true either.

In sum, looking the part isn’t a negligible component, but it isn’t everything either.


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Apr 2022)

Gunnar said:


> If your unit looks like a bag of crap, people will see it and think “that unit is a bag of crap”.  Who wants to be part of the Crap Bag Regiment?


You mean units in which people look like this?  



The unit this gentleman was in had no recruitment problems yet most of their members would look like « bags of crap » by military standards.





Gunnar said:


> Further, in the “fake it till you make it department”, looking in the mirror like a badass trained killer in Her Majesty’s service, may make you more inclined to do the work/change the attitude necessary to actually make it true.  I may not be James Bond in my tux, but damned if I’m not going to try to be suave, cultured and debonair while I’m looking that good.



Looks certainly don’t mean anything to me. Looks are superficial and I look for substance, as most of my colleagues do. The fact that some put any importance to looks to judge people’s ability to do their work effectively is concerning.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> You mean units in which people look like this?
> 
> View attachment 70219
> 
> ...


 SOF are a different kettle of fish. For the most part they are a proven quantity. 

Why does the Regular Army have inspections to ensure standards are being maintained?


----------



## KevinB (20 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Why does the Regular Army have inspections to ensure standards are being maintained?


Because they can't be bothered with actual drills that would teach more useful applications of attention to detail...


----------



## Gunnar (20 Apr 2022)

I still think both appearance AND competence matter.  Later on in your career, you simply know better what to look for.  The way you choose to look says something about your character, and the way you see yourself and others.  As one gets older, or less inexperienced, you fine-tune that “look” based on what is of importance to you and your perceived self-image.  Your pic isn’t spit and polish, but I bet that guy’s rifle is operable.


----------



## FSTO (20 Apr 2022)

Gunnar said:


> While appearance shouldn’t matter, I think history shows it does.  If your unit looks like a bag of crap, people will see it and think “that unit is a bag of crap”.  Who wants to be part of the Crap Bag Regiment?  Further, in the “fake it till you make it department”, looking in the mirror like a badass trained killer in Her Majesty’s service, may make you more inclined to do the work/change the attitude necessary to actually make it true.  I may not be James Bond in my tux, but damned if I’m not going to try to be suave, cultured and debonair while I’m looking that good.
> 
> Note the weasel words:  “may”.  There are still plenty of people who lie to themselves and think if they wear the same clothes as their heroes that they become their heroes.  “Look at me:  I’m Rambo!”.  This isn’t true either.
> 
> In sum, looking the part isn’t a negligible component, but it isn’t everything either.


Badass, as in this guy? A real change initiator?


----------



## Booter (20 Apr 2022)

Gunnar said:


> Your pic isn’t spit and polish, but I bet that guy’s rifle is operable.


You moved your goalposts. That sentence means he could be effective, but it has nothing to do with whether he has frosted tips or a tuxedo.

I think people don’t want to admit that they’d rather have everyone LOOK like they know what they are doing because they brushed their hair a certain way

We have grooming standards because of lice. So it’s practicality- which is The same reason we don’t shit and eat in the same place. 🤷‍♀️


----------



## KevinB (20 Apr 2022)

Gunnar said:


> I still think both appearance AND competence matter.  Later on in your career, you simply know better what to look for.  The way you choose to look says something about your character, and the way you see yourself and others.  As one gets older, or less inexperienced, you fine-tune that “look” based on what is of importance to you and your perceived self-image.  Your pic isn’t spit and polish, but I bet that guy’s rifle is operable.


Honestly that is a pretty cheap copout IMHO.
   For Recruits etc - uniformity in dress and appearance is done to promote cohesion - self discipline and attention to detail.
 It is often taken to extremely stupid levels - when instead of doing kit and quarters inspections, KIM's games and other drills should and could be done.
   A extraordinary amount of time is wasted by most Militaries doing stupid stuff, simply because it has always been done that way - when some actual thought about the job can come up with 99x better things to do -- the problem most "experienced" soldiers aren't actually experienced, and simply go through inane repetition because it has always been done that way.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Apr 2022)

KevinB said:


> Because they can't be bothered with actual drills that would teach more useful applications of attention to detail...


There’s a bit more to it than that. Younger troops need the mentorship and inspections ensure serviceability and maintenance of kit. Over time they can be reduced once you’re confident in their progress.


----------



## KevinB (20 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> There’s a bit more to it than that. Younger troops need the mentorship and inspections ensure serviceability and maintenance of kit. Over time they can be reduced once you’re confident in their progress.


My experience is that the CAF tends to not understand the reason for that - and candidates are often encourage to damage weapons unwittingly to get them "Inspection clean" - simply because very few of the staff even understand that either.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Apr 2022)

KevinB said:


> My experience is that the CAF tends to not understand the reason for that - and candidates are often encourage to damage weapons unwittingly to get them "Inspection clean" - simply because very few of the staff even understand that either.


Fully agreed with the overcleaning. A colleague of mine stated we over cleaned the FNs. And we did. Nothing to do? Draw weapons and clean them!!
Operational cleaning and inspection cleaning should be the same.


----------



## Kat Stevens (20 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Fully agreed with the overcleaning. A colleague of mine stated we over cleaned the FNs. And we did. Nothing to do? Draw weapons and clean them!!
> Operational cleaning and inspection cleaning should be the same.


Three guys in my squad in basic had the bright idea of putting the gas effected parts of their FNs in a garbage bag and hosing them down with oven cleaner and letting them sit for a few hours after the week in Granville. It did not end well for them. Or the rifle parts.


----------



## KevinB (20 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Fully agreed with the overcleaning. A colleague of mine stated we over cleaned the FNs. And we did. Nothing to do? Draw weapons and clean them!!
> Operational cleaning and inspection cleaning should be the same.


Simple Green, Fast Orange etc - not for weapons, while sure it cleans the carbon out - it does a nasty number to the Anodizing and causes galvanic corrosion in aluminum.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Apr 2022)

Another point: too many officers and NCOs thought kit inspections were a good way to yell and scream and charge people over silly errors. Lines on socks didn’t match! Charge that soldier!!!


----------



## Quirky (20 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> The fact that some put any importance to looks to judge people’s ability to do their work effectively is concerning.



Simple google search says that 55% of your first impression of a person are visual. I look for competence AND how someone presents themselves be it physically or through personal appearance (it has nothing to do with PER scoring or the like). Through my experience those two usually go together naturally, people who have their ducks in a row usually look the part. I know if I ever walk into a job interview in the real world, I won't be utilizing the new military standard of appearance, I have a little more self-respect than green hair, long nails and face piercings. If I want to dress up like a clown, I'll be doing it on my own time.


----------



## KevinB (20 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Another point: too many officers and NCOs thought kit inspections were a good way to yell and scream and charge people over silly errors. Lines on socks didn’t match! Charge that soldier!!!


I will never forget when the illustrious BGen Cox infected my bugout gear and when looking for mismatched socks found a solo sock -- and didn't understand my comment as to why it was solo - "it is the one I use" while he's got it in his hands and CSM Cromwell started chuckling uncontrollable...


----------



## Booter (20 Apr 2022)

I see competence in the way their kit is set up and they move. When everything is falling apart I don’t look for shiny boots. So if we can’t train people to be effective that’s a different issue than looking like they have their ducks in a row. 

But I’m dog water so that’s enough of me saying the same stuff over and over.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 Apr 2022)

KevinB said:


> My experience is that the CAF tends to not understand the reason for that - and candidates are often encourage to damage weapons unwittingly to get them "Inspection clean" - simply because very few of the staff even understand that either.


It's almost as if people misunderstand the purpose of inspections in general 😁.

The main point of inspections is to ensure serviceability of equipment, looks have nothing to do with it.  

It's also to ensure that soldiers are following orders 😉

e.g. If ordered to bring 72hrs of water and rations, you must have 72hrs of water and rations.

People get complacent at times, no matter who they are and inspections are just a tool to stave off complacency.

Level of detail and thoroughness of inspections is dependent on who the individuals are:

Brand new recruits = full inspection
Seasoned professionals = buddy checks are probably sufficient

Inspections shouldn't just happen before an operation either.  Post-op inspections are often more important to ensure  fighting element can be redeployed rapidly.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Apr 2022)

Inspect what you expect.

Seasoned professionals should still do inspections.  Even guys with hundreds of parachute jumps get a full inspection from the JM - it curbs the realities of human nature.


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Apr 2022)

Quirky said:


> Simple google search says that 55% of your first impression of a person are visual. I look for competence AND how someone presents themselves be it physically or through personal appearance (it has nothing to do with PER scoring or the like). Through my experience those two usually go together naturally, people who have their ducks in a row usually look the part. I know if I ever walk into a job interview in the real world, I won't be utilizing the new military standard of appearance, I have a little more self-respect than green hair, long nails and face piercings. If I want to dress up like a clown, I'll be doing it on my own time.


This person’s style really hindered his success…. If we keep marginalizing style over substance, style will keep playing a big role in perception.


----------



## btrudy (20 Apr 2022)

Gunnar said:


> While appearance shouldn’t matter, I think history shows it does.  If your unit looks like a bag of crap, people will see it and think “that unit is a bag of crap”.  Who wants to be part of the Crap Bag Regiment?  Further, in the “fake it till you make it department”, looking in the mirror like a badass trained killer in Her Majesty’s service, may make you more inclined to do the work/change the attitude necessary to actually make it true.  I may not be James Bond in my tux, but damned if I’m not going to try to be suave, cultured and debonair while I’m looking that good.
> 
> Note the weasel words:  “may”.  There are still plenty of people who lie to themselves and think if they wear the same clothes as their heroes that they become their heroes.  “Look at me:  I’m Rambo!”.  This isn’t true either.
> 
> In sum, looking the part isn’t a negligible component, but it isn’t everything either.


I really think people are being quite unreasonable with their assessment of the proposed changes.

A unit which includes men who are wearing ponytails or have long bears is not inherently a unit which "looks like a bag of crap".

A unit which includes people who have hair that is dyed teal or orange or purple is not inherently a unit which "looks like a bag of crap".

A unit which includes people who have multiple ear rings or occasionally wear mirrored sunglasses or photochromic lenses or paint their nails is not inherently a unit which "looks like a bag of crap".

A unit which looks like a bag of crap will be a unit where people are slovenly, unkempt, and unfit. Hair and nails etc? That's not what does it. Just because someone does not adhere to our current standards which are based upon a set of rigid notions from the early 1900s about what a military member "should" look like, doesn't mean that notion is at all accurate or reasonable.

And then, once we stop caring about things like "is your hair touching your ears", maybe we can start focusing our efforts on the things that actually matter.


----------



## Remius (20 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> I really think people are being quite unreasonable with their assessment of the proposed changes.
> 
> A unit which includes men who are wearing ponytails or have long bears is not inherently a unit which "looks like a bag of crap".
> 
> ...


Overall impression at my unit is meh.  Enforce the rules that are layed out as per direction.  Nothing is personally directed at anyone so go with it.  I expect a few weeks of a few individuals testing the waters.  Probably to see if they can get a reaction.   Then a balance and state of normalcy as people figure out what works best for them.  Some crap is hard to maintain.  And I bet in the field even harder so people will normally go with what is easier.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> I really think people are being quite unreasonable with their assessment of the proposed changes.
> 
> A unit which includes men who are wearing ponytails or have long bears is not inherently a unit which "looks like a bag of crap".
> 
> ...


I mean a substantial portion of the CAF is already unfit so situation no change 😄


----------



## Booter (20 Apr 2022)

In fairness- the RCMP changed the regs similar to these with man buns etc. 

I’ve seen one in the wild.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 Apr 2022)

Booter said:


> In fairness- the RCMP changed the regs similar to these with man buns etc.
> 
> I’ve seen one in the wild.


I'm looking forward to the rehash of the 1993 documentary  "Under Arrest"

Can't wait to see some good ole Federales, newly armed with battle mullets, duke it out against Canada's finest trash 😁.  Will make for great 🍿

Ignore the title, drunken idiot needs a good ole fashioned GBA+ beatdown!


----------



## btrudy (20 Apr 2022)

Booter said:


> In fairness- the RCMP changed the regs similar to these with man buns etc.
> 
> I’ve seen one in the wild.


The concept of being against a man-bun is somewhat amusing to me, since I really do feel like for the military, like 90% of the time you'd end up seeing a man wearing a bun would be in a situation where he doesn't actually want to wear a bun, but the dress regulations regarding the wear of long hair would force him into it. Obviously the old PONYTAILFORGEN would have fixed some of those problems, but it still had a length limit (not past your armpits), and still required buns in ... I think 1As? Anything with a tunic? Something along those lines.

The slide deck posted wasn't clear if the new rules would be eliminating the limits on lengths of ponytails or braids, and/or allowing their usages in the more formal orders of dress.

But anyways, if you want to see fewer manbuns, get rid of the regulations forcing people to wear buns. This may or may not be included in the upcoming set of changes.


----------



## Booter (20 Apr 2022)

That guy loves poop 🤔


----------



## Kilted (20 Apr 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Three guys in my squad in basic had the bright idea of putting the gas effected parts of their FNs in a garbage bag and hosing them down with oven cleaner and letting them sit for a few hours after the week in Granville. It did not end well for them. Or the rifle parts.


It's amazing how effective hot water can be to clean the C7's, as long as you CLP them afterwards.


----------



## Weinie (20 Apr 2022)

Kilted said:


> It's amazing how effective hot water can be to clean the C7's, as long as you CLP them afterwards.


After every three day field ex on BOTC in 1988, which was always rainy, dis-assembled the FN, stuck the parts in a garbage bag, and sprayed with WD-30. Took the rust and mildew right off.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Apr 2022)

> It is quite amazing how the parallel lines of the pattern on the trews emphasize the non parallel lines of those who wear trews.



Encourage them to wear sweaters; takes the eye off the trews.


----------



## Haggis (20 Apr 2022)

Booter said:


> In fairness- the RCMP changed the regs similar to these with man buns etc.
> 
> I’ve seen one in the wild.


Haven't seen a man bun on a uniformed officer in my agency yet.  They may be out there, but I haven't seen one.  Top knots, yes.  Plainclothes guys - well that's another story.


----------



## Booter (20 Apr 2022)

Haggis said:


> Haven't seen a man bun on a uniformed officer in my agency yet.  They may be out there, but I haven't seen one.  Top knots, yes.  Plainclothes guys - well that's another story.


Just seen the one. And I couldn’t take my eyes off it. It was super surreal. 

Then he let it down while typing and I floated out of my body unable to understand the world anymore. But I’ve got my own set of issues lol


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Apr 2022)

I can't wait till it floats downward to the Cadets and the outrage from older CIC staff. I having been taking flak for letting two of my Cadets have long hair, one has a medical issue and the other a cultural issue, otherwise they are both pretty awesome Cadets.


----------



## btrudy (20 Apr 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> I can't wait till it floats downward to the Cadets and the outrage from older CIC staff. I having been taking flak for letting two of my Cadets have long hair, one has a medical issue and the other a cultural issue, otherwise they are both pretty awesome Cadets.


Damned snowflakes, always so easily offended at the smallest things!


----------



## Weinie (20 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> Damned snowflakes, always so easily offended at the smallest things!


I think you mean glaciers.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Apr 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Can't have Kilts and skirts in the same parade, otherwise small children might ask: "What is the difference?"


Airflow…


----------



## ballz (20 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Ok I’m a bit old school and yes I agree with what you say to an extent however dress and deportment is somewhat important too. Wearing kit properly and using for what it was intended for is important.



I think the COs and RSMs should lead by example by not trying to create their own policies - that they have no authority to create other than bullying - just because they don't like it. The institution has decided what is and what is not important, where the threshold is for dress and deportment, and they should lead by example by following and executing higher direction loyally, not begrudgingly or doing their best to not follow their own leadership at all and in many cases undermine them. The same thing they expect of their subordinates.

When that starts happening, orders and directives from the top aimed at fixing the many cultural problems might actually have an effect, they can't work when Bde Comd, COs, OCs, and the Sereants-Major they carry around in their rucksack won't follow.


----------



## Kilted (20 Apr 2022)

ballz said:


> I think the COs and RSMs should lead by example by not trying to create their own policies - that they have no authority to create other than bullying - just because they don't like it. The institution has decided what is and what is not important, where the threshold is for dress and deportment, and they should lead by example by following and executing higher direction loyally, not begrudgingly or doing their best to not follow their own leadership at all and in many cases undermine them. The same thing they expect of their subordinates.
> 
> When that starts happening, orders and directives from the top aimed at fixing the many cultural problems might actually have an effect, they can't work when Bde Comd, COs, OCs, and the Sereants-Major they carry around in their rucksack won't follow.


If they weren't able to stop BEARDFORGEN, they won't be able to stop this.


Also, what are we calling this: HAIRFORGEN?


----------



## btrudy (20 Apr 2022)

Probably, although it does encompass more than hair. 

I'd also seen MANBUNFORGEN.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Apr 2022)

ballz said:


> I think the COs and RSMs should lead by example by not trying to create their own policies - that they have no authority to create other than bullying - just because they don't like it. The institution has decided what is and what is not important, where the threshold is for dress and deportment, and they should lead by example by following and executing higher direction loyally, not begrudgingly or doing their best to not follow their own leadership at all and in many cases undermine them. The same thing they expect of their subordinates.
> 
> When that starts happening, orders and directives from the top aimed at fixing the many cultural problems might actually have an effect, they can't work when Bde Comd, COs, OCs, and the Sereants-Major they carry around in their rucksack won't follow.



You almost made me feel guilty for never, ever wearing this (stupid) thing 

Minister MacKay introduces War of 1812 pins​On July 19 during his visit to CFB Esquimalt, The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence unveiled the War of 1812 Commemorative pins which will be worn by all Canadian Forces members for the next three years to mark the sacrifice and commitment of those who fought in this war from 1812-1815.

He pinned the first one on Sailor of the Quarter LS Mathieu Blais during a ceremony held on the Wardroom patio.









						Minister MacKay introduces War of 1812 pins - Pacific Navy News
					

On July 19 during his visit to CFB Esquimalt, The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence unveiled the War of 1812 Commemorative pins which will be worn by all Canadian Forces members for the next three years to mark the sacrifice and commitment of those who fought in this war from...




					www.lookoutnewspaper.com


----------



## Haggis (20 Apr 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> You almost made me feel guilty for never, ever wearing this (stupid) thing
> 
> Minister MacKay introduces War of 1812 pins​On July 19 during his visit to CFB Esquimalt, The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence unveiled the War of 1812 Commemorative pins which will be worn by all Canadian Forces members for the next three years to mark the sacrifice and commitment of those who fought in this war from 1812-1815.


I had the fun of questioning the CWO of the RCAF about why the RCAF was commemorating a war that ended 88 years before the airplane was invented.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Apr 2022)

ballz said:


> I think the COs and RSMs should lead by example by not trying to create their own policies - that they have no authority to create other than bullying - just because they don't like it. The institution has decided what is and what is not important, where the threshold is for dress and deportment, and they should lead by example by following and executing higher direction loyally, not begrudgingly or doing their best to not follow their own leadership at all and in many cases undermine them. The same thing they expect of their subordinates.
> 
> When that starts happening, orders and directives from the top aimed at fixing the many cultural problems might actually have an effect, they can't work when Bde Comd, COs, OCs, and the Sereants-Major they carry around in their rucksack won't follow.


Agreed but there are exceptions to the rules. I'll give you an example. Dress of the Day in garrison was Combat uniform with beret except it was -30C and wearing a beret would cause you to freeze your ears.
Would it not be prudent for the CO to say Combat uniform with toques ?

I get where your coming from but a few of the Dress and Deportment cops weren't all that good for anything else.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Apr 2022)

Weinie said:


> After every three day field ex on BOTC in 1988, which was always rainy, dis-assembled the FN, stuck the parts in a garbage bag, and sprayed with WD-30. Took the rust and mildew right off.


Was that in the days before the upgrade to WD-40?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Apr 2022)

kev994 said:


> Mostly something to be outraged about on a slow news day. Maybe the odd distraction.



Snowbirds !  Don’t forget the snowbirds!


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Agreed but there are exceptions to the rules. I'll give you an example. Dress of the Day in garrison was Combat uniform with beret except it was -30C and wearing a beret would cause you to freeze your ears.
> Would it not be prudent for the CO to say Combat uniform with toques ?
> 
> I get where your coming from but a few of the Dress and Deportment cops weren't all that good for anything else.


----------



## FSTO (20 Apr 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> You almost made me feel guilty for never, ever wearing this (stupid) thing
> 
> Minister MacKay introduces War of 1812 pins​On July 19 during his visit to CFB Esquimalt, The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence unveiled the War of 1812 Commemorative pins which will be worn by all Canadian Forces members for the next three years to mark the sacrifice and commitment of those who fought in this war from 1812-1815.
> 
> ...


It was lots of fun talking to Americans about the pin. I'd always say that it commemorated our glorious victories over your illegal invasion of our country. After the questioning look, I'd say "Your PR capabilities are light years ahead of ours".


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Apr 2022)

gryles said:


> So what we thinking about the new regs?  I don’t know much about True North as a source.
> 
> MCpl I’m friends with said he’s growing his hair out and dyeing it neon pink lol.



The news regs are coming; they are similar to stuff that has been released/leaked; unisex and restrictions will be based on operational and safety realities.  Eg - 4” gel nails might not be permitted when handling weapons.  

When?  I’m not sure that timelines have been released or decided 100%.  I would tell your MCpl friend not to plan on dying their  hair for any CoC functions this summer, though.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Apr 2022)

Furniture said:


> It will be like BEARDFORGEN, people will go a bit crazy at first, then settle into what they are comfortable with.
> 
> Look at how many people started a beard because they were allowed to grow one, then realized that it had it's drawbacks and shaved. That said, if the new regs allow for 3-4 day growth, I'll be investing in a nice trimmer, and ditching the razor until I need to shave for operational reasons.



3-4 day growth is allowed now.  I’ve been doing it for 3 years and change…


----------



## Kat Stevens (20 Apr 2022)

Your next RSM


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Apr 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I haven't seen the slideshow. Under this new policy can:
> 
> A male wear a deu skirt when required to wear deus; and
> 
> Can a male dye their beard all kinds of colours too?



Everyone should be able to order “male cut” or “female cut” DEU items from Logistik now (for several months now actually).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Apr 2022)

Furniture said:


> I suspect the rules about what footwear you need to wear with the skirt will prevent guys from doing it for a laugh. Women can't wear ankle boots with the skirt now, so I doubt ankle boots with skirts will be allowed when the new rules come out. If a bunch of guys want to buy pumps and learn to walk in them for the "entertainment" of wearing a skirt, all the more power to them. I'm sure if/when they get the reaction they wanted they will go right back to trousers.
> 
> Whatever the new rules will be, there will still be rules about what can be worth with what, and when it can be worn.



Why not just wear issued oxfords?  Pumps are optional.  

Ankle boots aren’t “mandatory” for NCMs.  If not specified, I’ve worn oxfords for years.   The line “ankle boots are the normal footwear at for Army DEU NCMs” was removed from 265 IIRC.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Apr 2022)

gryles said:


> Any word or predictions on if this will change the piercing policy? Would be cool to get a small stud somewhere



Some, yes.



gryles said:


> Also, do you think this will be limited to OFP?



That’s not the intent as I’ve seen it.   It will be for all CAF members, enrolment to release.


----------



## Weinie (21 Apr 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Was that in the days before the upgrade to WD-40?


10-W-30, WD-40, WTI, it's all oil, and it worked.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Apr 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Insightful. I agree about the free-for-all. One thing I've learned is CoC's often treat people quoting policy as a personal insult. They're quick to pull out the "Oh ya?!" and "Is that right?!" guns. Then shit gets real. The gloves and toque crowd won't be able to compute long hair and will need to punish people for it.



There is a pretty detailed plan for the implementation of this;  I can’t speak for the army or Navy but the Air Force is talking this policy change “last month”; there will be no surprise at…any levels between L1 - below.  

“Free for all”; this might be a concept people need to check now, before the changes.  Having dyed hair, gel nails and skirts in 3b by any member won’t be a free for all.  It will be authorized dress. 

 I think everyone needs to personally set their own head on right about this, have the right mindset…


----------



## Furniture (21 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Why not just wear issued oxfords?  Pumps are optional.
> 
> Ankle boots aren’t “mandatory” for NCMs.  If not specified, I’ve worn oxfords for years.   The line “ankle boots are the normal footwear at for Army DEU NCMs” was removed from 265 IIRC.


Fair enough, I hadn't dug into the rules about authorized footwear with a skirt, I was going by what I have seen over the last couple of decades. 

My overall point stands though, a few will wear skirts to get a reaction, otherwise it will be people who would have likely sought permission via administrative channels. Removing the administrative barrier is a great move, and hopefully makes members feel more comfortable in their uniforms.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Apr 2022)

Personally, my “big question” is how will our Allies view us as a military;  the changes are far more broad than I’d thought they would be, if I am honest.  There will be the possibility of a mbr to be in DEU with skirt, multiple earrings, gel nails, with long hair dyed blue and a beard dyed pink.  If that mbr is on a picture on say, a BBC/CBC/CNN article how will Canadians and our Allies react?

  Should we/do we need to care about that?

As to COs/Chiefs and others making their own dress regs;  there will be some push back no doubt from those who don’t like the changes.  There likely was with weed too and they don’t get to make their own rules.  I suspect there will be some clear direction from the most senior leadership on this subj.

There really should be no surprises at the CO/Chief level when this is officially public consumption (in details) and detailed at the unit/sub-unit levels.


----------



## btrudy (21 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Personally, my “big question” is how will our Allies view us as a military;  the changes are far more broad than I’d thought they would be, if I am honest.  There will be the possibility of a mbr to be in DEU with skirt, multiple earrings, gel nails, with long hair dyed blue and a beard dyed pink.  If that mbr is on a picture on say, a BBC/CBC/CNN article how will Canadians and our Allies react?
> 
> Should we/do we need to care about that?



Meh. If they're going to have stupid biases and make decisions based upon that, I suppose we can't really stop that. But we should hardly be making policy on what our people are allowed or not allowed to do based upon catering to the perceived prejudices of a bunch of foreigners. 



Eye In The Sky said:


> As to COs/Chiefs and others making their own dress regs;  there will be some push back no doubt from those who don’t like the changes.  There likely was with weed too and they don’t get to make their own rules.  I suspect there will be some clear direction from the most senior leadership on this subj.
> 
> There really should be no surprises at the CO/Chief level when this is officially public consumption (in details) and detailed at the unit/sub-unit levels.



I would hope that the policy when it comes out outlines when COs are allowed to order exemptions to the policy (bona fide safety / operational reasons only) and explicitly state that other reasons (desire for uniformity for parades etc) are not allowed.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> Meh. If they're going to have stupid biases and make decisions based upon that, I suppose we can't really stop that. But we should hardly be making policy on what our people are allowed or not allowed to do based upon catering to the perceived prejudices of a bunch of foreigners.



Calling something “stupid biases” might be a bit wide-brushed.  Not all countries and cultures see things exactly the way Modern Canada does;  so I’m hopeful that Snr Leadership assesses this and risk is examined/accepted at the right level.  I’ve worked on Ops with Allies;  I can tell you that there was so folks who weren’t…”impressed” with our weed policy, especially for aircraft techs turning wrenches at +24 hours and such.

I also included Canadians in my example with CBC;  we do need to care what they think - day to day we don’t enjoy immense public awareness and support as a matter of routine, IMO.

It’s a consideration that is valid to me, and others I’ve talked to.



btrudy said:


> I would hope that the policy when it comes out outlines when COs are allowed to order exemptions to the policy (bona fide safety / operational reasons only) and explicitly state that other reasons (desire for uniformity for parades etc) are not allowed.



That policy exists now;  read CFP 265, Ch 1, Para 7 and notice “subj to overall command direction”.   It’s never been a free for all for COs.

However, from what I’ve seen and been briefed on, the policy will provide sufficient detail for all levels of command to know their arcs.


----------



## btrudy (21 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I can tell you that there was so folks who weren’t…”impressed” with our weed policy, especially for aircraft techs turning wrenches at +24 hours and such.


Meh, with that there's at least a somewhat legitimate concern that it'll affect people's performance on the job. A largely misguided concern since alcohol has been allowed the entire time mind you, but still.

When I dye my hair purple, it will have no impact upon my ability to do my job. It'll just mean I'm a bit happier while going about it, because I'm finally allowed to do something that previously I've been stuck doing only during xmas vacation. 

I don't think it's unreasonable to refer to such biases as stupid, given the complete lack of any rational link to actual operational effectiveness.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Apr 2022)

Alcohol and weed don’t interact the same with the body;  that is why I can’t drink 12 hours before flying but am restricted to weed 28 DAYS before flying.   Apples/oranges.

If you deploy and are told purple hair is not authorized IAW TSO 1-2-3, as hair colour doesn’t affect operational effectiveness I’m sure you won’t mind changing it to a TSO approved colour.

Based on a bonafide operational necessity and order, of course.

I think the CAF also wouldn’t insult another cultures with different values as ours as “stupid biases”.   Because that might be insulting…


----------



## btrudy (21 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> And if you deploy and are told purple hair is not authorized IAW TSO 1-2-3, as hair colour doesn’t affect operational effectiveness I’m sure you won’t mind changing it to a TSO approved colour.
> 
> Based on a bonafide operational necessity and order, of course.
> 
> I think the CAF also wouldn’t insult another cultures with different values as ours as “stupid biases”.   Because that might be insulting…


Are we talking actual operational requirements? Those are reasonable. Having hair that's particularly visible and thus would make me easier to shoot is a good reason to give it the ole buzz cut. 

Adhering to some people's notion of how a military member "should" look is a completely different thing.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> Are we talking actual operational requirements? Those are reasonable. Having hair that's particularly visible and thus would make me easier to shoot is a good reason to give it the ole buzz cut.
> 
> Adhering to some people's notion of how a military member "should" look is a completely different thing.



I’m talking about any approved TSO (Theatre Standing Order) or similar item.   Maybe it’s a restriction from the Host Nation, or Force who administers/controls/secures a MOB, FOB, OS-HUB, etc.   I’ve been subj to a few TSO from
different host nations and HHQs.  I never really had the offer/option to question their origin.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Apr 2022)

Has anyone mentioned safety? I know the CBRN  considerations have. 

How about hair getting caught in moving parts on a vehicle?  Just asking.


----------



## dangerboy (21 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Has anyone mentioned safety? I know the CBRN  considerations have.
> 
> How about hair getting caught in moving parts on a vehicle?  Just asking.


The unofficial info I saw on social media had the following statement "Personal Safety and the ability to effectively operate equipment properly takes precedence; Comds maintain responsibility for ensuring this".

So I think safety will be considered while at the same time you don't want people trying to use it as an excuse to resist change.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> Adhering to some people's notion of how a military member "should" look is a completely different thing.



And just who are “some people “? The CDS? MND? The people of Canada?


----------



## SupersonicMax (21 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Has anyone mentioned safety? I know the CBRN  considerations have.
> 
> How about hair getting caught in moving parts on a vehicle?  Just asking.


How do we deal with female hair now?


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> How do we deal with female hair now?


I think that has been answered.


----------



## SupersonicMax (21 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> I think that has been answered.


My point is that we already have stipulations that deal with that aspect.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> My point is that we already have stipulations that deal with that aspect.


Yes you do BUT there’s always one in every crowd, right?


----------



## Furniture (21 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> I would hope that the policy when it comes out outlines when COs are allowed to order exemptions to the policy (bona fide safety / operational reasons only) and *explicitly state that other reasons (desire for uniformity for parades etc) are not allowed.*


I am sure there will be provisions for COs to order specific *dress* for parades, just like we have now. 

They likely won't be able to tell people to not dry their hair, for uniformity, just like how they can't everybody to get a "high and tight" for parades right now. 

As others have said, there will be direction from the top giving COs clear arcs, just like when WEEDFORGEN came down, and it was made clear that unless there was a operational reason COs could not ban weed in their units.


----------



## Underway (21 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Personally, my “big question” is how will our Allies view us as a military;  the changes are far more broad than I’d thought they would be, if I am honest.  There will be the possibility of a mbr to be in DEU with skirt, multiple earrings, gel nails, with long hair dyed blue and a beard dyed pink.  If that mbr is on a picture on say, a BBC/CBC/CNN article how will Canadians and our Allies react?
> 
> Should we/do we need to care about that?
> 
> ...


Apparently, you've never worked with the Dutch.


----------



## lenaitch (21 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> Meh, with that there's at least a somewhat legitimate concern that it'll affect people's performance on the job.* A largely misguided concern* since alcohol has been allowed the entire time mind you, but still.
> 
> When I dye my hair purple, it will have no impact upon my ability to do my job. It'll just mean I'm a bit happier while going about it, because I'm finally allowed to do something that previously I've been stuck doing only during xmas vacation.
> 
> I don't think it's unreasonable to refer to such biases as stupid, given the complete lack of any rational link to actual operational effectiveness.


Alcohol has been in legal use for decades.  it's not a perfect science, but the chemistry and biology of alcohol consumption and its impact on human performance is pretty well understood; cannabis less so.  Expect laws and regulations to evolve.

Are non-objective responses to matters of appearance 'stupid', 'silly' or 'misguided'?  Yup.  Welcome to human nature.  Everything past buck naked falls along a spectrum that not everyone will agree upon.  Said by probably every parent that raised a teenager.

If purple hair was that important, one might ask why someone would voluntarily joined an organization that, up until the apparent near future, doesn't allow it?


----------



## Underway (21 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> Adhering to some people's notion of how a military member "should" look is a completely different thing.


I agree, completely cultural.  The Sikh Turban is associated with warriors in India.  The face tattoos in NZ.  The specific height, weight, and size requirements for the Marine Corps, kilts for the Scottish, billion medals and ribbons for the French etc...


----------



## SupersonicMax (21 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Yes you do BUT there’s always one in every crowd, right?


Not sure what you mean.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Not sure what you mean.


One that will push the envelope


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Apr 2022)

lenaitch said:


> Alcohol has been in legal use for decades.  it's not a perfect science, but the chemistry and biology of alcohol consumption and its impact on human performance is pretty well understood; cannabis less so.  Expect laws and regulations to evolve.
> 
> Are non-objective responses to matters of appearance 'stupid', 'silly' or 'misguided'?  Yup.  Welcome to human nature.  Everything past buck naked falls along a spectrum that not everyone will agree upon.  Said by probably every parent that raised a teenager.
> 
> If purple hair was that important, one might ask why someone would voluntarily joined an organization that, up until the apparent near future, doesn't allow it?


Sado-masochism?  

🤔


----------



## SupersonicMax (21 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> One that will push the envelope


In what sense?  Have you observed this “pushing the envelope” with females that have long hair?


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> In what sense?  Have you observed this “pushing the envelope” with females that have long hair?


I’m not in any more so no. 

We did at least in the units I was in have guardhouse lawyers who’d challenge just about evert policy.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Apr 2022)

If you really want to push the envelope, develop a quirk - a brace of old pistols, an umbrella, a decorative sword, a small dog that goes everywhere with you, mix-and-match headgear.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Apr 2022)

30+ years ago when I joined, some people didn’t follow or pushed the line on dress regs.  People are doing it today.  I’d bet 30 years from now people will still toe and / or cross the line, whatever that may look like at the time.

That’s what Officers, Warrant/Petty Officers and NCOs are paid, partially, to do; enforce the regs on their subs and set a positive example.


----------



## btrudy (21 Apr 2022)

lenaitch said:


> Are non-objective responses to matters of appearance 'stupid', 'silly' or 'misguided'?  Yup.  Welcome to human nature.  Everything past buck naked falls along a spectrum that not everyone will agree upon.  Said by probably every parent that raised a teenager.



Sure. They exist. That doesn't mean I need to respect them, not does it mean that I consider it reasonable to be taking these non-objective responses into account when drafting policy. 



lenaitch said:


> If purple hair was that important, one might ask why someone would voluntarily joined an organization that, up until the apparent near future, doesn't allow it?



Because it's not _that_ important, or at least not to me. I'm sure there's some people who avoided joining entirely because of this rule, and some people who got out sooner than they would have otherwise because of it. 

Honestly, the thing that I find is that being in an organization that focuses so much on what I frankly consider to be petty unimportant BS tends to grate over time. My dissatisfaction with the status quo has steadily crept up over time. The more time I've got in the more annoying it is that we waste soooo much time and effort on enforcing rules that don't actually do anything to help. That are, in fact, overall harmful because all they do is hurt the morale of people who would otherwise make different aesthetic choices. 

Our job is the controlled application of violence, so why do we spend so much time focusing on being ready for dog and pony shows?


----------



## Remius (21 Apr 2022)

So anyone who is in or worked with the PS can attest to the fact that the place is not a hive of multi coloured hair, piercings and men and women switching between skirts and slacks and entire sub units of people rocking millennial mullets.  Dress regs are fairly simple in that world and people police themselves on what’s appropriate and what’s not.  There are a few scattered around but it’s far from some sort of circus. 

Not sure why we think the CAF is going to end up the route of fashion chaos.


----------



## btrudy (21 Apr 2022)

Remius said:


> So anyone who is in or worked with the PS can attest to the fact that the place is not a hive of multi coloured hair, piercings and men and women switching between skirts and slacks and entire sub units of people rocking millennial mullets.  Dress regs are fairly simple in that world and people police themselves on what’s appropriate and what’s not.  There are a few scattered around but it’s far from some sort of circus.
> 
> Not sure why we think the CAF is going to end up the route of fashion chaos.



And this is primarily because not everyone wants to wear their hair that way. Not many men want to wear skirts. Not many people want to wear mullets. 

And those people that do, can, and it's not an issue.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Apr 2022)

And if I see a man-bun and it's not on a medieval oriental warrior, I'm probably still going to laugh, a little.


----------



## btrudy (21 Apr 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> And if I see a man-bun and it's not on a medieval oriental warrior, I'm probably still going to laugh, a little.


Probably won't be too much of a problem if the dress regs get rid of the limit on length of pony tails / braids, as I expect them to. Or, even better, just allow long luxurious hair to flow freely.

Except for on parade I guess. Unless they get rid of that rule too. That one I kind of don't expect to see happen. I guess we'll see.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> Probably won't be too much of a problem if the dress regs get rid of the limit on length of pony tails / braids, as I expect them to. Or, even better, just allow long luxurious hair to flow freely.
> 
> Except for on parade I guess. Unless they get rid of that rule too. That one I kind of don't expect to see happen. I guess we'll see.



I'd just be interested in tracking the careers of any Officers or SNCOS who avail themselves of the 'man bun' option etc.

My guess is their trajectories will be different from those who are more traditionally coiffed


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Apr 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> I'd just be interested in tracking the careers of any Officers or SNCOS who avail themselves of the 'man bun' option etc.
> 
> My guess is their trajectories will be different from those who are more traditionally coiffed


It's almost like people are judgy naturally 🤣







But........


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Apr 2022)

Most people put some effort into presenting themselves how they want to be seen and perceived, which means they are trying to influence judgement, which means they don't really want others to be non-judgemental.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Apr 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> I'd just be interested in tracking the careers of any Officers or SNCOS who avail themselves of the 'man bun' option etc.
> 
> My guess is their trajectories will be different from those who are more traditionally coiffed



And Warrant/Petty Officers too!  😁


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> Probably won't be too much of a problem if the dress regs get rid of the limit on length of pony tails / braids, as I expect them to. Or, even better, just allow long luxurious hair to flow freely.
> 
> Except for on parade I guess. Unless they get rid of that rule too. That one I kind of don't expect to see happen. I guess we'll see.



You seem a little…






…about the new dress regs and they haven’t even come out yet.   Why not just sit back, relax and wait.   They aren’t imminently around the corner and they might not all happen at once. 
Anyone sitting on the edge of their seat for this is going to have some ass pain waiting…and waiting…

If I had to bet a bag of marbles, I’d say the CAF / Govt is already socializing this to our bosses, the Canadian taxpayer (yes their opinion matters) based on the number of media outlets that put the story out unofficially recently.

TLDR;  relax - you’re complaining that the Christmas turkey is too dry before Mom even puts it in the oven…


----------



## btrudy (21 Apr 2022)

Hah jokes on you my career's already dead in the water


Brad Sallows said:


> Most people put some effort into presenting themselves how they want to be seen and perceived, which means they are trying to influence judgement, which means they don't really want others to be non-judgemental.


The people I'm trying to influence with my personal appearance choices aren't the ones at work.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> ...you’re complaining that the Christmas turkey is too dry before Mom even puts it in the oven…


You've been talking to my wife, haven't you?


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Apr 2022)

> The people I'm trying to influence with my personal appearance choices aren't the ones at work.



I understand; most people appear one way in the workplace and another socially.  It's still incumbent upon people in the workplace (CAF) to not interpret appearance socially, but not all will succeed.


----------



## Haggis (21 Apr 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> If you really want to push the envelope, develop a quirk - a brace of old pistols, an umbrella, a decorative sword, a small dog that goes everywhere with you, mix-and-match headgear.


You've met them, too?


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> The people I'm trying to influence with my personal appearance choices aren't the ones at work.



Who are you trying to influence with your personal appearance?


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Apr 2022)

Haggis said:


> You've met them, too?


We had an OC in B Coy who wore a Brit para helmet and carried a basket hilted sword on parade. I am somewhat dismayed he didn't carry an umbrella on exercise.....


----------



## Haggis (21 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> We had an OC in B Coy who wore a Brit para helmet and carried a basket hilted sword on parade. I am somewhat dismayed he didn't carry an umbrella on exercise.....


I remember one CO who had the nickname "Colonel Dress-up" for his field gear.  I'm surprised he didn't go into politics.


----------



## btrudy (21 Apr 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Who are you trying to influence with your personal appearance?


Well, primarily myself. I make choices about my personal appearance because they make _me _feel good about myself. 

2ndarily my spouse, and then friends & family.


----------



## RangerRay (21 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> We had an OC in B Coy who wore a Brit para helmet and carried a basket hilted sword on parade. I am somewhat dismayed he didn't carry an umbrella on exercise.....


Like this guy?


----------



## Navy_Pete (21 Apr 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> If you really want to push the envelope, develop a quirk - a brace of old pistols, an umbrella, a decorative sword, a small dog that goes everywhere with you, mix-and-match headgear.



It's not a quirk, it's an emotional support parrot! 🦜


----------



## kev994 (21 Apr 2022)

Carry one of these?








						Pace Stick Black - 39"
					

Available in black, maple or rosewood – 39in, 41in and 43in lengths. "Racer" pace sticks produced to unique Canadian precision specifications.  These are the new Canadian standard, sleek but robustly built, and suitable for parade, presentation, and competition.  A correctly sized stick should...




					www.canex.ca


----------



## Quirky (21 Apr 2022)

I find it ironic(is that the right word?) that people get personally offended and crushed morally, over time it seems, on being critiqued on their appearance. Meanwhile forgetting they voluntarily joined an organization that can legally put you in harms way or even death. People have different personal priorities I guess…


----------



## SupersonicMax (21 Apr 2022)

Quirky said:


> I find it ironic(is that the right word?) that people get personally offended and crushed morally, over time it seems, on being critiqued on their appearance. Meanwhile forgetting they voluntarily joined an organization that can legally put you in harms way or even death. People have different personal priorities I guess…


Except being sent in harms way account for less than 1% of the time spent in the CAF for a minority of people.  All the other time, those things add up in some people’s daily lives, and being treated like a kid is definitely one of those irritants.


----------



## Furniture (21 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Except being sent in harms way account for less than 1% of the time spent in the CAF for a minority of people.  *All the other time, those things add up in some people’s daily lives, and being treated like a kid is definitely one of those irritants.*


I think people overemphasize the big things, and their impact on morale/retention, while also downplaying the little things that wear at people daily. 

Stupid dress regulations are unlikely to be the reason someone states for quitting, but the daily grind of the stupidity of some of our rules wears on some people every day, and needlessly so. 

The same goes for uniforms. People won't state in a release interview "I'm quitting because the uniforms were crap, and I could never get ones that fit properly", but putting on a worn out, or ill fitting uniform every day for years wears people down.


----------



## kev994 (21 Apr 2022)

Furniture said:


> I think people overemphasize the big things, and their impact on morale/retention, while also downplaying the little things that wear at people daily.
> 
> Stupid dress regulations are unlikely to be the reason someone states for quitting, but the daily grind of the stupidity of some of our rules wears on some people every day, and needlessly so.
> 
> The same goes for uniforms. People won't state in a release interview "I'm quitting because the uniforms were crap, and I could never get ones that fit properly", but putting on a worn out, or ill fitting uniform every day for years wears people down.


I’m quitting because I can’t figure out the glove/toque thing and it’s not even written down somewhere so I can’t look it up.


----------



## Furniture (21 Apr 2022)

kev994 said:


> I’m quitting because I can’t figure out the glove/toque thing and it’s not even written down somewhere so I can’t look it up.


Oh... there is a flowchart. I can't find my copy right now, but it exists somewhere.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Except being sent in harms way account for less than 1% of the time spent in the CAF for a minority of people.  All the other time, those things add up in some people’s daily lives, and being treated like a kid is definitely one of those irritants.



_*Multiple DLN mandatory courses enter the chat, holding hands and smirking_


----------



## kev994 (21 Apr 2022)

Furniture said:


> Oh... there is a flowchart. I can't find my copy right now, but it exists somewhere.


I know there’s a flowchart, but that’s all there is, it’s not a real thing so stop yelling about it!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Apr 2022)

kev994 said:


> I’m quitting because I can’t figure out the glove/toque thing and it’s not even written down somewhere so I can’t look it up.



If it’s not written down, it’s also likely not signed off by the appropriate authority so…


----------



## lenaitch (21 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> Sure. They exist. That doesn't mean I need to respect them, not does it mean that I consider it reasonable to be taking these non-objective responses into account when drafting policy.


[/QUOTE]

Which, I suppose is your choice.  Not respecting a rule of your employer has potential consequences.    If it can't trust you to follow the little ones, don't be surprised when they don't trust you to follow the big ones.


btrudy said:


> Because it's not _that_ important, or at least not to me. I'm sure there's some people who avoided joining entirely because of this rule, and some people who got out sooner than they would have otherwise because of it.
> 
> Honestly, the thing that I find is that being in an organization that focuses so much on what I frankly consider to be petty unimportant BS tends to grate over time. My dissatisfaction with the status quo has steadily crept up over time. The more time I've got in the more annoying it is that we waste soooo much time and effort on enforcing rules that don't actually do anything to help. That are, in fact, overall harmful because all they do is hurt the morale of people who would otherwise make different aesthetic choices.
> 
> Our job is the controlled application of violence, so why do we spend so much time focusing on being ready for dog and pony shows?


Having a creeping dissatisfaction, frustration, ennui with one's career or employer certainly isn't restricted to the CAF.  If you are hanging in just for the pension points, it's your ulcer.

I have a hard time believing anyone joining the military didn't expect that parades, appearance and deportment wasn't a part of the job.  At least in the military there is a process for transgression or pushing of envelopes.  Try telling your team leader at Macdonald's that you are wearing jeans and a t-shirt because you're just not into shades of grey and ball hats, and see if you make it to shift change.  Everybody has 'stupid' rules.


----------



## SupersonicMax (21 Apr 2022)

lenaitch said:


> Everybody has 'stupid' rules.


Because everyone has “stupid” rules, it’s okay to have ours and we don’t need to try and remove the silliness?

In my career, I have had longer than average hair on an almost regular basis (I normally get a haircut monthly and yes, my hair touches my ears towards the end of that time period) and boots that were not always black.  In most cases, it was because I was stupid busy at work and taking the hour to get a haircut or the 15-20 minutes to polish boots wasn’t a smart time management strategy.  This didn’t prevent my CoC to assign some rather complex an important tasks and roles.


----------



## kev994 (21 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> If it’s not written down, it’s also likely not signed off by the appropriate authority so…


Have you ever tried proving that a rule doesn’t exist? My base had a collective heart attack in the fall when the base chief saw someone in Tim’s defying the assumed rule. He’ll hath no fury. I spent like a day on this. It’s not in the National dress manual, that just says gloves need to be worn with a gaberdine or something like that, also says operational dress per the formation commander’s discretion. CADO 1-106 just says you can wear a toque, also you can wear gloves. My base orders say that you shall wear gloves with a rain jacket, nobody seems to know or care about this one, nothing about toques. So I point out to the Unit chief that Bloggins isn’t doing anything wrong, it’s not a real rule and here’s what I’ve discovered; he points at the gaberdine one and says well it’s implied here 🙄


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Because everyone has “stupid” rules, it’s okay to have ours and we don’t need to try and remove the silliness?
> 
> In my career, I have had longer than average hair on an almost regular basis (I normally get a haircut monthly and yes, my hair touches my ears towards the end of that time period) and boots that were not always black.  In most cases, it was because I was stupid busy at work and taking the hour to get a haircut or the 15-20 minutes to polish boots wasn’t a smart time management strategy.  This didn’t prevent my CoC to assign some rather complex an important tasks and roles.



You clearly aren't a Cpl in a RCR rifle section then


----------



## Furniture (21 Apr 2022)

kev994 said:


> Have you ever tried proving that a rule doesn’t exist? My base had a collective heart attack in the fall when the base chief saw someone in Tim’s defying the assumed rule. He’ll hath no fury. I spent like a day on this. It’s not in the National dress manual, that just says gloves need to be worn with a gaberdine or something like that, also says operational dress per the formation commander’s discretion. CADO 1-106 just says you can wear a toque, also you can wear gloves. My base orders say that you shall wear gloves with a rain jacket, nobody seems to know or care about this one, nothing about toques. So I point out to the Unit chief that Bloggins isn’t doing anything wrong, it’s not a real rule and here’s what I’ve discovered; he points at the gaberdine one and says well it’s implied here 🙄


That sort of foolishness is why the air force way is best. If you're cold wear authorized kit to be warm, if you're warm take off the offending layer.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Apr 2022)

kev994 said:


> Have you ever tried proving that a rule doesn’t exist? My base had a collective heart attack in the fall when the base chief saw someone in Tim’s defying the assumed rule. He’ll hath no fury. I spent like a day on this. It’s not in the National dress manual, that just says gloves need to be worn with a gaberdine or something like that, also says operational dress per the formation commander’s discretion. CADO 1-106 just says you can wear a toque, also you can wear gloves. My base orders say that you shall wear gloves with a rain jacket, nobody seems to know or care about this one, nothing about toques. So I point out to the Unit chief that Bloggins isn’t doing anything wrong, it’s not a real rule and here’s what I’ve discovered; he points at the gaberdine one and says well it’s implied here 🙄


As a former RSM I had a few rules and I hope none were silly. I told the troops wear boots that are black when in CADPAT as long as they were a black combat style boot. No issues. I also told them no Under Armor or dry weave t shirts for safety reasons - they burn and stick. No issues.

And I never enforced the stupid gloves must be worn with rain jacket BS.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Because everyone has “stupid” rules, it’s okay to have ours and we don’t need to try and remove the silliness?
> 
> In my career, I have had longer than average hair on an almost regular basis (I normally get a haircut monthly and yes, my hair touches my ears towards the end of that time period) and boots that were not always black.  In most cases, it was because I was stupid busy at work and taking the hour to get a haircut or the 15-20 minutes to polish boots wasn’t a smart time management strategy.  This didn’t prevent my CoC to assign some rather complex an important tasks and roles.


I totally get your point but you gotta understand the cultural differences between being a Pilot and an Infantry Soldier.

I am assessing that the Combat Arms will probably have the hardest time with these changes because they are organizations that promote conformity at the expense of everything else.

It's necessary to function effectively in the environment.  Is it fair?  No.  Are people sometimes bullied and harassed out of Units for the perception of being weak or different? Yes.

What it comes down to is conformity.  Picking someone up for something as simple as not cutting their hair was a pretty easy way to determine who would potentially not follow other orders with more serious consequences.

Nothing about being an Infanteer is that hard. Literally any able bodied person can attempt it, until it gets crappy.  It takes a certain type to want to continue to do it, inspite of that.

It's a gang mentality that has existed in frontline units forever.  

I look forward to watching the consequences of all of this play out and its implementation from the comfort of my retirement 😎


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Apr 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Nothing about being an Infanteer is that hard. Literally any able bodied person can attempt it, until it gets crappy.  It takes a certain type to want to continue to do it, inspite of that.


Everyone wants to be infantry until you actually have to do infantry shit.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Everyone wants to be infantry until you actually have to do infantry shit.


Just ask the Chechen Tiktok Battalion 😂


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Everyone wants to be infantry until you actually have to do infantry shit.


Disagree


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Apr 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Disagree


Or maybe they just know they don't like the taste of crayons already.

Eating crayons in Kindergarten is very important.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Apr 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I totally get your point but you gotta understand the cultural differences between being a Pilot and an Infantry Soldier.
> 
> I am assessing that the Combat Arms will probably have the hardest time with these changes because they are organizations that promote conformity at the expense of everything else.
> 
> ...


…but get to higher speed, lower drag, fewer sparks, and that rote conformity with minimal divergence becomes a lot less important, compared with the ability to do the deal…


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Apr 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> …but get to higher speed, lower drag, fewer sparks, and that rote conformity with minimal divergence becomes a lot less important, compared with the ability to do the deal…


Yep, but that's the diff between the 1% and everyone else.

Even then, results aren't always desirable and gang mentality rears it's head in other ways:









						Brereton Report - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Apr 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> …but get to higher speed, lower drag, fewer sparks, and that rote conformity with minimal divergence becomes a lot less important, compared with the ability to do the deal…


To add, there is a reason we treat recruits a certain way vs trained members.  Heck there us even a difference in line units WRT rifle companies vs recce/snipers.


----------



## SupersonicMax (21 Apr 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Yep, but that's the diff between the 1% and everyone else.


But it doesn’t have to be.  Prioritizing excellence and continuous improvement in our work should be the norm once someone is past OFP.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Apr 2022)

> putting on a worn out, or ill fitting uniform every day for years wears people down.



The old work dress might as well have been a deliberate attempt to humiliate people into quitting, even if brand new and well-fitted.

Gloves and gabardines...really enjoyed being soaked to the skin a couple of time on Nov 11 in Vancouver because a couple of people didn't have gloves.  I remember the people who enforced that sh!t.


----------



## btrudy (22 Apr 2022)

lenaitch said:


> Which, I suppose is your choice.  Not respecting a rule of your employer has potential consequences.    If it can't trust you to follow the little ones, don't be surprised when they don't trust you to follow the big ones.



Who said anything about not following them? I follow the regulations. I don't like them. And I'm glad they're changing. 



lenaitch said:


> I have a hard time believing anyone joining the military didn't expect that parades, appearance and deportment wasn't a part of the job.



Just because something is part of the job doesn't mean that it _should_ be part of the job. Just because we do something (or hopefully soon _did _something), doesn't mean that thing is something that's done for a good reason. Just because someone at some point had the authority to mandate that all hair shall be a natural colour and people need to adhere to traditional gender roles when it comes to appearance does not mean that anyone is obligated to agree with the rules. 

I am very glad that we're starting to get rid of aspects of the job which do nothing but impose outdated aesthetic standards on people without any reason that could be tied to increasing our actual job. Because at the end of the day, the controlled application of violence is what we do, and all those parades and haircuts etc should rightly be considered completely unimportant when compared to that. We're not the Canadian People Who Look Sharp in Uniform, we're the Canadian Armed Forces. 

We're often in the habit of doing things just because we've been doing those things forever, long after doing those things have had any benefit (assuming they ever did). But as the saying goes, tradition is just peer pressure from dead people. 

Maybe we can also start getting rid of some other aspects of our "traditions" which aren't actually helpful anymore. Change of Command parades for example, are IMHO nothing but a giant ego stroking exercise for senior officers, that also manage to waste untold manhours in the process. My understanding is that, after having seen what happened with taking them virtual in the pandemic, the RCAF seems to have come to the realization that, yeah, that was a giant waste of time and has shitcanned any further Change of Command parades. Perhaps the rest of the CAF could follow suit. 



lenaitch said:


> At least in the military there is a process for transgression or pushing of envelopes.  Try telling your team leader at Macdonald's that you are wearing jeans and a t-shirt because you're just not into shades of grey and ball hats, and see if you make it to shift change.  Everybody has 'stupid' rules.



Now you're comparing apples to hand grenades.  The CAF is not getting rid of the concept of having a uniform. We will still have stuff that we will need to wear. That's not a particular issue. The issue is the manner in which the portions of the dress instructions regarding hair, nails, etc impact a person's ability to properly express themselves in a manner they see fit while off duty. Since I can't just go and rebleach and dye my hair each time I get off duty. 

Having some form of visual identifier that you're in the CAF is quite reasonable. I'm pretty sure that literally no one here has ever advocated getting rid of uniforms entirely.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> But it doesn’t have to be.  Prioritizing excellence and continuous improvement in our work should be the norm once someone is past OFP.


You probably don't realize it, but you're in that 1%.   
While I think your stance is admirable, I just don't think, based on my experience, that it's reflective of the reality.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Apr 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> You probably don't realize it, but you're in that 1%.
> While I think your stance is admirable, I just don't think, based on my experience, that it's reflective of the reality.


HB, I think that % also varies by service.  I’d argue that SSM is closer to being substantive/majority in the RCAF.  Any service that comes up with an operationally-functional goretex raincoat that keeps you dry AND has fleece-lined pockets probably get greater personnel buy-in than one that keeps you in a cheap plastic one that smells like dog vomit and keeps more sweat inside than it protects from rain outside.


----------



## stoker dave (22 Apr 2022)

I will offer my perspective.  As I have said, much of my work is on large construction sites with various historic - waste hazards.  

The construction workers show up to do a job.  They don't care so much about their appearance but they certainly don't go for extremes of dyed hair, ear rings, piercings, etc.   I might describe some of them as 'unkempt' in appearance.   They are required to conform to site safety procedures as relate to long hair, facial hair, personal protective clothing and equipment, etc.    Non-conformance with the site rules will result in immediate termination.  

I was recently at a site meeting for all senior project staff - project manager, senior engineers, site superintendents and site supervisors (maybe 25 people).  No clients or vice-presidents about.  Everyone at the meeting was properly turned out.  Probably 90% of the people had haircuts conforming to current DND standards.  

These are serious people, doing serious work and there is an extreme focus on the work at hand.   People are treated with respect all around as the project cannot succeed unless every part of the project succeeds.  

From my perspective, when you treat people with the professionalism and respect they deserve, they respond accordingly.   No one is trying to 'make a statement' or 'push the envelope' with their dress and deportment.  They are there to work.   They see a path for advancement in the company and know that path depends on their and the project's success.   Their deportment is careful as they know their peers and subordinates are watching.  No one compels them to behave or dress in a certain way - they just know what to do.  

As an aside, this project will soon be receiving an award from a major provincial body as 'project of the year'.  An indication of success.


----------



## Quirky (22 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> In my career, I have had longer than average hair on an almost regular basis (I normally get a haircut monthly and yes, my hair touches my ears towards the end of that time period) and boots that were not always black.


You’ve just described every fast jet pilot in the RCAF. 😝


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Apr 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> HB, I think that % also varies by service.  I’d argue that SSM is closer to being substantive/majority in the RCAF.  Any service that comes up with an operationally-functional goretex raincoat that keeps you dry AND has fleece-lined pockets probably get greater personnel buy-in than one that keeps you in a* cheap plastic one that smells like dog vomit and keeps more sweat inside than it protects from rain outside.*



And then make sure that they don't put it on when it's raining because 'the noise will give you away'.

Treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen


----------



## KevinB (22 Apr 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> HB, I think that % also varies by service.  I’d argue that SSM is closer to being substantive/majority in the RCAF.  Any service that comes up with an operationally-functional goretex raincoat that keeps you dry AND has fleece-lined pockets probably get greater personnel buy-in than one that keeps you in a cheap plastic one that smells like dog vomit and keeps more sweat inside than it protects from rain outside.


I was issued a British DPM Gortex Rain coat. 
    It was fantastic, and it absolutely infuriated many people, so I wore it many times I didn’t need to  that and the Norwegian sweater.  

I often felt than the best way to fix Clothe the Solider was to make everyone involved in that program do three months in Wainwright wearing the kit they felt was acceptable for general issue.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Apr 2022)

KevinB said:


> I was issued a British DPM Gortex Rain coat.
> It was fantastic, and it absolutely infuriated many people, so I wore it many times I didn’t need to  that and the Norwegian sweater.



And the trousers actually fit properly... saved my life a couple of times did 'Gary Gore-tex', as he was known


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2022)

> We're often in the habit of doing things just because we've been doing those things forever, long after doing those things have had any benefit (assuming they ever did). But as the saying goes, tradition is just peer pressure from dead people.



In this specific case, there is some truth in that.  But as a general principle, no: look up "Chesterton's Fence" (ie. if you want to do away with something, the onus is on you to prove it is superceded or unnecessary).


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2022)

The same argument about hair, etc applies to uniform.  Why not have a selection of hats and shoes and whatnot for each order of dress and allow people to choose what to wear for a particular order?


----------



## btrudy (22 Apr 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> In this specific case, there is some truth in that.  But as a general principle, no: look up "Chesterton's Fence" (ie. if you want to do away with something, the onus is on you to prove it is superceded or unnecessary).



Stacking the deck in favour of the status quo is only reasonable when the status quo is clearly working well. Given the myriad of issues that the CAF is facing in, well, every aspect of doing its business, I don't think that's reasonable. 



Brad Sallows said:


> The same argument about hair, etc applies to uniform.  Why not have a selection of hats and shoes and whatnot for each order of dress and allow people to choose what to wear for a particular order?



You mean like choosing to wear 3Bs with or without a sweater, long or short sleeved, oxfords or ankle boots, etc etc? NCDs with or without a jacket, rolled or unrolled sleeves, etc? Ball caps or berets or peak caps (as applicable)?

Yeah, that's be _terrible._


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2022)

On parade?


----------



## btrudy (22 Apr 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> On parade?



Sure; while I generally think most parades are a giant waste of resources, mandating a particular order of dress is reasonable for them.

I don't get why people here seem to be focusing so much on them though. What about the other 362 days of the year? Allowing flexibility in what people wear when they do their job day to day, in accordance with what they find most comfortable is going to result in people being more comfortable, and thus happier, with better morale, and therefore will aid in retention.


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Apr 2022)

Bread and circuses. Our senior officer corps are a bunch of drunken frat boys in Daytona Beach, our air defence is non existent, our navy is rotting out from the waterline up, our anti armour is sadly lacking, the infantry can't have it's own method of indirect fire, our land vehicle fleet is aging out, but let the troops wear whatever they want and look like whatever they want, and that will fix everything. Let them eat cake, works every time, just don't look behind the curtain.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Apr 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> The same argument about hair, etc applies to uniform.  Why not have a selection of hats and shoes and whatnot for each order of dress and allow people to choose what to wear for a particular order?


I'm sorry Brad, but when I read that, I envisioned a reviewing party showing up in a clown car or maybe the Legion of Frontiersmen


----------



## ArmyRick (22 Apr 2022)

Fook it! This retired WO says line up all the senior officers in the CAF on the parade square for a healthy evening of kit inspections, remedial foot drill and and change parades. I volunteer to run this.

What will this accomplish? Not a damn thing but at least I will be entertained. It will be as useful as the CAF constantly changing miniscule rules that amount to nothing.

People are getting out or not joining in the first place has nothing to do with woke dress policies. Seriously, offer adventure, CHALLENGE (physical and mental), skills, job satisfaction and team comradery are much better temptations than pointless dress regulations changes.


----------



## kev994 (22 Apr 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Bread and circuses. Our senior officer corps are a bunch of drunken frat boys in Daytona Beach, our air defence is non existent, our navy is rotting out from the waterline up, our anti armour is sadly lacking, the infantry can't have it's own method of indirect fire, our land vehicle fleet is aging out, but let the troops wear whatever they want and look like whatever they want, and that will fix everything. Let them eat cake, works every time, just don't look behind the curtain.


We like to start with the 'low hanging fruit' but never seem to be able to organize a ladder.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2022)

> Allowing flexibility in what people wear



I agree.  But rather than move former arbitrary boundaries to some new arbitrary boundaries that suit the people asking for them, just identify all the arbitrary boundaries and remove them entirely.  And if there's some reason to not remove them, then apply that same reason to whatever people are asking to change right now.


----------



## btrudy (22 Apr 2022)

ArmyRick said:


> Fook it! This retired WO says line up all the senior officers in the CAF on the parade square for a healthy evening of kit inspections, remedial foot drill and and change parades. I volunteer to run this.
> 
> What will this accomplish? Not a damn thing but at least I will be entertained. It will be as useful as the CAF constantly changing miniscule rules that amount to nothing.
> 
> People are getting out or not joining in the first place has nothing to do with woke dress policies. Seriously, offer adventure, CHALLENGE (physical and mental), skills, job satisfaction and team comradery are much better temptations than pointless dress regulations changes.


Right, if the situation is already bad, might as well make it worse, right?


----------



## btrudy (22 Apr 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> I agree.  But rather than move former arbitrary boundaries to some new arbitrary boundaries that suit the people asking for them, just identify all the arbitrary boundaries and remove them entirely.  And if there's some reason to not remove them, then apply that same reason to whatever people are asking to change right now.


I don't think it's unreasonable to say that this is exactly what the proposed changes are accomplishing.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Apr 2022)

ArmyRick said:


> People are getting out or not joining in the first place has nothing to do with woke dress policies. Seriously, offer adventure, CHALLENGE (physical and mental), skills, job satisfaction and team comradery are much better temptations than pointless dress regulations changes.


…and better HR…currently a blend of limited competence, unresponsive policies and discretionary vindictiveness. Certainly not the marks of an “employer of choice.”


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Apr 2022)

ArmyRick said:


> Fook it! This retired WO says line up all the senior officers in the CAF on the parade square for a healthy evening of kit inspections, remedial foot drill and and change parades. I volunteer to run this.
> 
> What will this accomplish? Not a damn thing but at least I will be entertained. It will be as useful as the CAF constantly changing miniscule rules that amount to nothing.
> 
> People are getting out or not joining in the first place has nothing to do with woke dress policies. Seriously, offer adventure, CHALLENGE (physical and mental), skills, job satisfaction and team comradery are much better temptations than pointless dress regulations changes.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Apr 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I'm sorry Brad, but when I read that, I envisioned a reviewing party showing up in a clown car or maybe the Legion of FrontiersmenView attachment 70269


Not sure I’d trust the Klingon second from the right


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2022)

> People are getting out or not joining in the first place has nothing to do with woke dress policies.



If the 70s-era work dress couldn't keep people out or convince them to leave, dress is not that big an issue.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Apr 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> If the 70s-era work dress couldn't keep people out or convince them to leave, dress is not that big an issue.



Except that, in the 70s, all members were from the Baby Boomer generation which, as we know, is a generation that is different from the current crop of recruits...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Apr 2022)

ArmyRick said:


> Fook it! This retired WO says line up all the senior officers in the CAF on the parade square for a healthy evening of kit inspections, remedial foot drill and and change parades. I volunteer to run this.
> 
> What will this accomplish? Not a damn thing but at least I will be entertained. It will be as useful as the CAF constantly changing miniscule rules that amount to nothing.
> 
> People are getting out or not joining in the first place has nothing to do with woke dress policies. Seriously, offer adventure, CHALLENGE (physical and mental), skills, job satisfaction and team comradery are much better temptations than pointless dress regulations changes.


I think we found the next candidate for CDS!

Finally someone gets it.  When I was 18, the only reason I wanted to join was to try and attempt this:









Good2Golf said:


> HB, I think that % also varies by service.  I’d argue that SSM is closer to being substantive/majority in the RCAF.  Any service that comes up with an operationally-functional goretex raincoat that keeps you dry AND has fleece-lined pockets probably get greater personnel buy-in than one that keeps you in a cheap plastic one that smells like dog vomit and keeps more sweat inside than it protects from rain outside.



I'm just trying to give SSM an alternative perspective.  

Sometimes the uncomfortable truth is something that we don't necessarily want to admit.  

Truth #1:  Combat Arms Sub-Units have more in common with a 1% Motorcycle Club than they do with the Fighter Jet Community 😉


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2022)

> Except that, in the 70s, all members were from the Baby Boomer generation which, as we know, is a generation that is different from the current crop of recruits...



Sure.  paisley prints, flowered prints, corduroy, cutoffs, sandals (with and without socks), long hair, beards, beaded necklaces...and that was just the teachers.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Apr 2022)

kev994 said:


> Have you ever tried proving that a rule doesn’t exist? My base had a collective heart attack in the fall when the base chief saw someone in Tim’s defying the assumed rule. He’ll hath no fury. I spent like a day on this. It’s not in the National dress manual, that just says gloves need to be worn with a gaberdine or something like that, also says operational dress per the formation commander’s discretion. CADO 1-106 just says you can wear a toque, also you can wear gloves. My base orders say that you shall wear gloves with a rain jacket, nobody seems to know or care about this one, nothing about toques. So I point out to the Unit chief that Bloggins isn’t doing anything wrong, it’s not a real rule and here’s what I’ve discovered; he points at the gaberdine one and says well it’s implied here 🙄



Thankfully, Officers using common sense can override said Chiefs and end the conversation quickly.   Heck they can even say “respectfully you’re wrong”.  Trump card.  According to 265, Warrant Officers only assist Officers, not overrule them.  😉


----------



## kev994 (23 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Thankfully, Officers using common sense can override said Chiefs and end the conversation quickly.   Heck they can even say “respectfully you’re wrong”.  Trump card.  According to 265, Warrant Officers only assist Officers, not overrule them.  😉


Who wants to stop and argue with every chief on the base? It’s easier just to have cold fingers, or ears, I can never remember which one it is.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Apr 2022)

kev994 said:


> Who wants to stop and argue with every chief on the base? It’s easier just to have cold fingers, or ears, I can never remember which one it is.



If I was an Officer there’d be no arguing.  “Thanks for your opinion Chief.  That’s not how I see it.   The member is not doing anything wrong.”   End of convo.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Apr 2022)

Furniture said:


> That sort of foolishness is why the air force way is best. If you're cold wear authorized kit to be warm, if you're warm take off the offending layer.



Honestly; I’ve ignored and not enforce the whole toque and gloves BS.  The worst I saw for stupidity and dress concurrently was the RCN at Stadacona.  CP02s at the entrance posted at the base entrances policing dress.  We had a Sgt on course at ADAC a few years back who was stopped because the lid was open on his Tim’s cup.   ROFL.  Absolutely right out of er.


----------



## SupersonicMax (23 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> If I was an Officer there’d be no arguing.  “Thanks for your opinion Chief.  That’s not how I see it.   The member is not doing anything wrong.”   End of convo.


You’d be surprised how this would generally land you in a small world of shite.  Chief will get angry to be told someone thinks he is wrong. He’ll talk to the base Chief who, generally with little context and one side of the story, will talk to the Base Commander who, with even less context, will talk with the Sqn CO who will have a one way conversation with you. By that point, everyone’s mind is already made up (and the story isn’t about dress anyways but being “disrespectful “ towards the Chief(even though you were really polite - disagreeing is what is disrespectful), so there is no point in arguing.

I’ve seen it play out a couple of times in different context (not only dress).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> You’d be surprised how this would generally land you in a small world of shite.  Chief will get angry to be told someone thinks he is wrong. He’ll talk to the base Chief who, generally with little context and one side of the story, will talk to the Base Commander who, with even less context, will talk with the Sqn CO who will have a one way conversation with you. By that point, everyone’s mind is already made up (and the story isn’t about dress anyways but being “disrespectful “ towards the Chief(even though you were really polite - disagreeing is what is disrespectful), so there is no point in arguing.
> 
> I’ve seen it play out a couple of times in different context (not only dress).



It’s not entirely lost on me how interaction between Sqn COs and Sqn WOs interact with the WCWO etc.   My last previous posting, there was no MWO between myself and my SCWO and this past PER season I’ve been an A/SWO for a fair part of it.  

What you’re saying it’s the inaccurate; but it’s the not acceptable either.  Part of the needed culture change in the CAF is presented in your post.

Part of our culture issue, IMO is this idea of Command Team.  Why is the typical Command Team the CO and CWO?  Why not CO and DCO and then CWO?  When is a CWO in Command if the CO is away?  Never.  My CO and DCO have been away.  I’ve been A/SWO.  I didn’t go to the WComd CUB - the Ops O did.  I would discuss things with the CO/ DCO as required and give me thoughts and recommendations - the decision was never mine to make.

Eg:

The Royal Canadian Air Force Command Chief Warrant Officer (RCAF CCWO) is the senior enlisted member of the air force. They act as an *advisor to the Commander *of the RCAF on matters affecting all ranks in matters related to dress, discipline, morale and welfare, and quality of life.

Advisor to Commander; not Commander.  This is true at the RCAF/Div/Wing/Sqn levels.

We need to start getting this right.


----------



## kev994 (23 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Part of our culture issue, IMO is this idea of Command Team.  Why is the typical Command Team the CO and CWO?  Why not CO and DCO and then CWO?  .


This is what my unit does in practice.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Apr 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> The same argument about hair, etc applies to uniform.  Why not have a selection of hats and shoes and whatnot for each order of dress and allow people to choose what to wear for a particular order?



That is the RCAF


btrudy said:


> You mean like choosing to wear 3Bs with or without a sweater, long or short sleeved, oxfords or ankle boots, etc etc? NCDs with or without a jacket, rolled or unrolled sleeves, etc? Ball caps or berets or peak caps (as applicable)?
> 
> Yeah, that's be _terrible._



If you’re going to try to make an argument it helps to be accurate. 

There is no 3b with sweater.  There is no 3b with long sleeve; those are different orders of dress entirely. In the RCAF at least, I can wear a LS or SS shirt with tunic or oxfords or ankle boots unless ordered a certain item for a parade; that uniformity is allowed in 265.

 In operational dress I can wear a wedge or beret and, in the future, ball hat.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Honestly; I’ve ignored and not enforce the whole toque and gloves BS.  The worst I saw for stupidity and dress concurrently was the RCN at Stadacona.  CP02s at the entrance posted at the base entrances policing dress.  We had a Sgt on course at ADAC a few years back who was stopped because the lid was open on his Tim’s cup.   ROFL.  Absolutely right out of er.



It's true.  The dress police.  Haven't seen them active in a while.

We used to be, still are ?  Really concerned about walking in and out dress.  I remember having to wear salt and peppers to work to then change into work dress.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Apr 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> It's true.  The dress police.  Haven't seen them active in a while.
> 
> We used to be, still are ?  Really concerned about walking in and out dress.  I remember having to wear salt and peppers to work to then change into work dress.



Daily dress Stadacona; Jnr NCOs and below, operational dress.  Snr NCOs and above, 3b.

🤷🏻‍♂️


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Daily dress Stadacona; Jnr NCOs and below, operational dress.  Snr NCOs and above, 3b.
> 
> 🤷🏻‍♂️



In general yup.  But they're are exceptions.  

Same for HMC Dockyard.  

My next post is to the main warehouse.  And while I am a CPO2 my dress is operational dress as I will be working in a warehouse.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> That is the RCAF
> 
> 
> If you’re going to try to make an argument it helps to be accurate.
> ...



And I thought Scottish regiments' orders of dress were confusing


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Apr 2022)

We have a culture where ignoring unpopular rules are often treated like a behavior to admire and emulate. We're a strong hierarchy based culture and ignoring dress standards and rules are two ways people try to stand out in the cool-guy hierarchy to be noticed. Sometimes it's for pure functionality purposes (rolling sleeves), sometimes it's also to cultivate a certain image (officers wearing their berets with cap badges almost over their ear like the British), sometimes it's both (cutting down the brim of floppy hats).

Driving vehicles someones not qualified for. Bringing personal weapons to a range. Some G-Wagon beers mid ex.  Anecdotal but I personally see a correlation between soldiers going out of their way to ignore dress standards and those ignoring other rules.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Apr 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> And I thought Scottish regiments' orders of dress were confusing



That’s why they give us pictures n stuff!


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> That’s why they give us pictures n stuff!



Of course, being a more technical trade than Infantry, they're likely known as 'schematics'


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> You’d be surprised how this would generally land you in a small world of shite.  Chief will get angry to be told someone thinks he is wrong. He’ll talk to the base Chief who, generally with little context and one side of the story, will talk to the Base Commander who, with even less context, will talk with the Sqn CO who will have a one way conversation with you. By that point, everyone’s mind is already made up (and the story isn’t about dress anyways but being “disrespectful “ towards the Chief(even though you were really polite - disagreeing is what is disrespectful), so there is no point in arguing.
> 
> I’ve seen it play out a couple of times in different context (not only dress).


Which is exactly why I think the entire concept of Command Team is flawed and a lot of Chief's outside of the unit level i.e. Coxn/RSM aren't much in the way of value added.

When you get to what is Chief 1, you should be promoted to the rank of Lt(N)/Capt and carry on.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Apr 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> We have a culture where ignoring unpopular rules are often treated like a behavior to admire and emulate. We're a strong hierarchy based culture and ignoring dress standards and rules are two ways people try to stand out in the cool-guy hierarchy to be noticed. Sometimes it's for pure functionality purposes (rolling sleeves), sometimes it's also to cultivate a certain image (officers wearing their berets with cap badges almost over their ear like the British), sometimes it's both (cutting down the brim of floppy hats).



Floppy hats with smaller brims make better fishing hats.  I mean, allow for better hearing in an O.P.


Jarnhamar said:


> Driving vehicles someones not qualified for. Bringing personal weapons to a range. Some G-Wagon beers mid ex.  Anecdotal but I personally see a correlation between soldiers going out of their way to ignore dress standards and those ignoring other rules.



Have to agree.   I find the guy who forgets his flashlight is the same guy who forgets the 4 mile
Escape vector call.   Not a rule of thumb, but a lack of self discipline and obedience in one area is a fair predictor for the same performance shortcomings in other areas.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Apr 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> We have a culture where ignoring unpopular rules are often treated like a behavior to admire and emulate. We're a strong hierarchy based culture and ignoring dress standards and rules are two ways people try to stand out in the cool-guy hierarchy to be noticed. Sometimes it's for pure functionality purposes (rolling sleeves), sometimes it's also to cultivate a certain image (officers wearing their berets with cap badges almost over their ear like the British), sometimes it's both (cutting down the brim of floppy hats).
> 
> Driving vehicles someones not qualified for. Bringing personal weapons to a range. Some G-Wagon beers mid ex.  Anecdotal but I personally see a correlation between soldiers going out of their way to ignore dress standards and those ignoring other rules.


What?  You never had a couple of G-Wagon Beers before?  🤣


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Apr 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Of course, being a more technical trade than Infantry, they're likely known as 'schematics'


 COIs;  Clothing Operating Instructions.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Apr 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Which is exactly why I think the entire concept of Command Team is flawed and a lot of Chief's outside of the unit level i.e. Coxn/RSM aren't much in the way of value added.
> 
> When you get to what is Chief 1, you should be promoted to the rank of Lt(N)/Capt and carry on.



Or just progress CWOs in pay into the Captain bands and have them remain more effective as a professional, non-compromised, SNCO that can provide the essential, objective, experienced checks and balances to the actions of an overly career focused commander.

When we relegate our most Senior SNCOs to the role of 'advisor' or bag holder for an Officer, or merely part of a fictitious and cult of personality focused 'Command Team', we deserve what we get.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Apr 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> We have a culture where ignoring unpopular rules are often treated like a behavior to admire and emulate. We're a strong hierarchy based culture and ignoring dress standards and rules are two ways people try to stand out in the cool-guy hierarchy to be noticed. Sometimes it's for pure functionality purposes (rolling sleeves), sometimes it's also to cultivate a certain image (officers wearing their berets with cap badges almost over their ear like the British), sometimes it's both (cutting down the brim of floppy hats).
> 
> Driving vehicles someones not qualified for. Bringing personal weapons to a range. Some G-Wagon beers mid ex.  Anecdotal but I personally see a correlation between soldiers going out of their way to ignore dress standards and those ignoring other rules.



Wait... You've witnessed people bringing personal firearms and a military run range qualification or practice ?


----------



## kev994 (23 Apr 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Which is exactly why I think the entire concept of Command Team is flawed and a lot of Chief's outside of the unit level i.e. Coxn/RSM aren't much in the way of value added.
> 
> When you get to what is Chief 1, you should be promoted to the rank of Lt(N)/Capt and carry on.


I dunno, when passing points to a group of SNCOs, “the Base Chief is losing his mind because you guys aren’t wearing your masks” seems to be more effective than “the WComd is losing his mind….” Same message, both true, anecdotally they take the former more serious.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Apr 2022)

kev994 said:


> I dunno, when passing points to a group of SNCOs, “the Base Chief is losing his mind because you guys aren’t wearing your masks” seems to be more effective than “the WComd is losing his mind….” Same message, both true, anecdotally they take the former more serious.


Because our culture sucks 😎.  Most other Militaries out there would see swift and savage justice dealt for anyone disregarding direction from a Unit Level Commander.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Apr 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Because our culture sucks 😎.  Most other Militaries out there would see swift and savage justice dealt for anyone disregarding direction from a Unit Level Commander.



Agreed.  We need to reestablish the line of those who hold a commissioning scroll and those who don't. 

I believe a Sgt and up should be the following: 

1) Example for those below in rank;
2) The vocal and passionate representative of those below in rank; 
3) An unwavering provider of honesty, interpretation and understanding of situations, rules and regulations to those above and below in rank; 
4) Technical expert in their field; 
5) The trusted advisor for those above; 
6) The applicator of decision for those above.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Daily dress Stadacona; Jnr NCOs and below, operational dress.  Snr NCOs and above, 3b.
> 
> 🤷🏻‍♂️


In the last Reg Force unit I was in the RSM set the dress policy and it wasn't onerus. He expected every NCO to enforce it and while some did it with zeal others preferred the quiet word with the 20 year corporals who appreciated not being jacked up in front of their peers.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> In the last Reg Force unit I was in the RSM set the dress policy and it wasn't onerus. He expected every NCO to enforce it and while some did it with zeal others preferred the quiet word with the 20 year corporals who appreciated not being jacked up in front of their peers.



Praise in public criticism in private.  It's an excellent method.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Apr 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Agreed.  We need to reestablish the line of those who hold a commissioning scroll and those who don't.
> 
> I believe a Sgt and up should be the following:
> 
> ...



And maintaining strict discipline e.g.,

The Cost of Poor Discipline​








						The Lord Down Here: Discipline Lessons from RSM Lord MVO MBE
					

RSM Lord was the first RSM of 3 PARA, the first Academy Sgt Maj at Sandhurst and was senior Warrant Officer at Stalagluft 11B after his capture at Arnhem. A legendary leader and a legendary figure, here is RSM Lord's story and three pieces of advice on discipline from his life.




					thearmyleader.co.uk
				




RSM Lord also knew the cost of poor discipline. Although he didn’t realise it at the time, he (and the 1st Parachute Brigade) felt its effect in Arnhem.

As paratroopers, RSM Lord and his soldiers were not allowed to carry marked maps. After the war, Lord came across a translation of the German war diary from the Panzer Grenadier battalion he had faced at Arnhem. It was from Sunday 17th September 1944. The first landings had been made and the German commanding officer was considering the problem every defending commander has against airborne landings – where to deploy and how to hit out to disrupt the attack when it was at its weakest. Which bridge were the British heading for? Or which airfield?

The war diary read: ‘Sunday. Battalion Headquarters. From maps found on a captured British despatch rider, we discover that the enemy has two main lines of advance; one along the railway cutting and one in the direction of the hotel to the north-west edge of Oosterbeek … To be forewarned is to be forearmed.’

RSM Lord later commented, in his speech on discipline to the Army Staff College,



> “One private soldier neglected to obey an order… Who can say, by that one man disobeying an order, how many lives were lost and what it cost the 1st Parachute Brigade in their effort to get to the bridge. There you see why we stern sergeants major, the purveyors of the orders of the commanding officers, are so insistent that the orders, once issued, are intelligently obeyed to the letter.”


----------



## Quirky (23 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> You’d be surprised how this would generally land you in a small world of shite.  Chief will get angry to be told someone thinks he is wrong. He’ll talk to the base Chief who, generally with little context and one side of the story, will talk to the Base Commander who, with even less context, will talk with the Sqn CO who will have a one way conversation with you.


That's, in my opinion, some chicken  level of leadership if the Chief isn't an adult and has to go crying to mom/dad at the Wing. Are they incapable of handling it on their own? It was no different when my Sgt told me that my WO thought my hair was getting too long. "you tell him that I told you to tell him that his hair is too long".


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Apr 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> And maintaining strict discipline e.g.,
> 
> The Cost of Poor Discipline​
> 
> ...



Big fan.  Truly an example.

My most influential Chiefs were the ones who were firm, unrelenting and consistent in sheep dogging me as a young sailor.  These were also the most fierce and compassionate representatives of those in their charge.


----------



## kev994 (23 Apr 2022)

Quirky said:


> That's, in my opinion, some chicken  level of leadership if the Chief isn't an adult and has to go crying to mom/dad at the Wing. Are they incapable of handling it on their own? It was no different when my Sgt told me that my WO thought my hair was getting too long. "you tell him that I told you to tell him that his hair is too long".


As a young Capt I got a stern talking to by a newly promoted something, maybe a WO or Sgt trying out his new role, for not saluting another Capt, which was really confusing because it isn’t a thing. Apparently he told on me and this fake problem just wouldn’t go away, weeks later a different person would approach me to discuss this erroneous encounter 🙄. He eventually admitted it’s not a thing but the aftermath was somewhat annoying, and I didn’t even do anything.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Apr 2022)

kev994 said:


> As a young Capt I got a stern talking to by a newly promoted something, maybe a WO or Sgt trying out his new role, for not saluting another Capt, which was really confusing because it isn’t a thing. Apparently he told on me and this fake problem just wouldn’t go away, weeks later a different person would approach me to discuss this erroneous encounter 🙄. He eventually admitted it’s not a thing but the aftermath was somewhat annoying, and I didn’t even do anything.



Just wondering.... did he salute you before and after he 'advised' you?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Apr 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Or just progress CWOs in pay into the Captain bands and have them remain more effective as a professional, non-compromised, SNCO that can provide the essential, objective, experienced checks and balances to the actions of an overly career focused commander.
> 
> When we relegate our most Senior SNCOs to the role of 'advisor' or bag holder for an Officer, or merely part of a fictitious and cult of personality focused 'Command Team', we deserve what we get.



CWOs are Warrant Officers not NCOs.  There’s a difference.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Apr 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Wait... You've witnessed people bringing personal firearms and a military run range qualification or practice



Right!?!?


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Apr 2022)

I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the "I'm wearing jeans anyways" crowd out of RMC but as an NCO I've been pretty shocked at how some new LTs in a unit will blatantly ignore orders from OCs or even stuff coming down from the CO.

Said LTs will often explode when they feel a troop has, or appeared to, not treat their own directions like it's Holy Writ.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Apr 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Which is exactly why I think the entire concept of Command Team is flawed and a lot of Chief's outside of the unit level i.e. Coxn/RSM aren't much in the way of value added.
> 
> When you get to what is Chief 1, you should be promoted to the rank of Lt(N)/Capt and carry on.



I think it’s important to remember things like “as a WCWO I don’t outrank a CO”.   

They are advisors to superiors and mentors to subs but…they still fit in that “CWO/NCM” part of our rank structure. 

Our Wing Dress Instrs are signed by the WComd, not WCWO…


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Apr 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Which is exactly why I think the entire concept of Command Team is flawed and a lot of Chief's outside of the unit level i.e. Coxn/RSM aren't much in the way of value added.
> 
> When you get to what is Chief 1, you should be promoted to the rank of Lt(N)/Capt and carry on.



I maintain we have room for a small number of CPO1/CWO technical experts and trade advisors but they should be few and far between.  

But in general a CPO1/CWO should not be holding the rank if they are not part of a command team. 

I like the idea of the Conductor as employed by the RLC of the British Army. 









						Conductor (military appointment) - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Apr 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Wait... You've witnessed people bringing personal firearms and a military run range qualification or practice ?


I'm sure they had a waiver.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Apr 2022)

kev994 said:


> As a young Capt I got a stern talking to by a newly promoted something, maybe a WO or Sgt trying out his new role, for not saluting another Capt, which was really confusing because it isn’t a thing. Apparently he told on me and this fake problem just wouldn’t go away, weeks later a different person would approach me to discuss this erroneous encounter 🙄. He eventually admitted it’s not a thing but the aftermath was somewhat annoying, and I didn’t even do anything.



I hope that Sgt got ripped a new one, for so many valid and obvious reasons.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Apr 2022)

Quirky said:


> That's, in my opinion, some chicken  level of leadership if the Chief isn't an adult and has to go crying to mom/dad at the Wing. Are they incapable of handling it on their own? It was no different when my Sgt told me that my WO thought my hair was getting too long. "you tell him that I told you to tell him that his hair is too long".



It’s possible that the WO was correcting the Sgt for not correcting you…a learning point that was not fully taken on apparently…


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Apr 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I'm sure they had a waiver.


That’s a thing?


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Apr 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I'm sure they had a waiver.



Is that a thing ?  

I mean I've used my own firearms on CAF ranges but never while on duty.  It was only ever as part of a rod and gun club or pre season sighting in for charity.  And these were all sanctioned and approved events.


----------



## gcclarke (23 Apr 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Praise in public criticism in private.  It's an excellent method.


Obligatory reminder that it's not just a good practice, you're literally not allowed to do otherwise in many cases. As outlined in QR&Os Vol 1 Chapt 19 - 19.13 - REBUKE IN PRESENCE OF JUNIOR


> No officer or non-commissioned member shall rebuke any person in the presence or hearing of anyone junior to that person in rank, unless a public rebuke is absolutely necessary for the preservation of discipline.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Apr 2022)

> It was no different when my Sgt told me that my WO thought my hair was getting too long. "you tell him that I told you to tell him that his hair is too long".



There's a useful reason for doing that - keeps the immediate supervisor in the loop.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Apr 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> There's a useful reason for doing that - keeps the immediate supervisor in the loop.



Very true but can also be a cop out and set up a mom vs dad dynamic though.

"Hey the Captian thinks your hair is too long, I know I know, but he wants you got to cut it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Apr 2022)

Which not only removes the benefit, but piles on more damage - it is impossible to weaken the authority of anyone in the unified chain of command without weakening your own.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Apr 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the "I'm wearing jeans anyways" crowd out of RMC but as an NCO I've been pretty shocked at how some new LTs in a unit will blatantly ignore orders from OCs or even stuff coming down from the CO.
> 
> Said LTs will often explode when they feel a troop has, or appeared to, not treat their own directions like it's Holy Writ.


 
To be an Adjt for a week or two and have these folks put under me for corrective trg and PD….


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Apr 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Of course, being a more technical trade than Infantry, they're likely known as 'schematics'


I think EITS was paraphrasing for you crayon-eaters. 😉


----------



## Kat Stevens (23 Apr 2022)

gcclarke said:


> Obligatory reminder that it's not just a good practice, you're literally not allowed to do otherwise in many cases. As outlined in QR&Os Vol 1 Chapt 19 - 19.13 - REBUKE IN PRESENCE OF JUNIOR


HAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!! Oh, that's for real?  HAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Apr 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Because our culture sucks 😎.  Most other Militaries out there would see swift and savage justice dealt for anyone disregarding direction from a Unit Level Commander.



This;  IMO, the average level of obedience is declining from where it should be and the level of disciplinary action to counter that has also declined.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> This;  IMO, the average level of obedience is declining from where it should be and the level of disciplinary action to counter that has also declined.


It all goes back to that Canadian trait of:

"That's terrible, someone really out to do something about this!  Just make sure that someone isn't me 😬"


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Apr 2022)

low level punishments used to solve most low level stuff and usually at the MWO and Adjt levels.   Not even sure if they exist anymore.  As a younger NCM, I realized “you can’t XYZ” and not pay the price.   I have fond memories of rolling the dice in the RSMs office once. Or twice…

One time I drew 14 extras as Duty MCpl.  My Sgt-Maj said “you might as well move into the duty room!”   Not sure if that was meant as an order or joke…I moved in for my sentence.

Lessons were learned, laughs were had.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> low level punishments used to solve most low level stuff and usually at the MWO and Adjt levels.   Not even sure if they exist anymore.  As a younger NCM, I realized “you can’t XYZ” and not pay the price.   I have fond memories of rolling the dice in the RSMs office once. Or twice…
> 
> One time I drew 14 extras as Duty MCpl.  My Sgt-Maj said “you might as well move into the duty room!”   Not sure if that was meant as an order or joke…I moved in for my sentence.
> 
> Lessons were learned, laughs were had.



They used to work then a few boneheads took it too far. 

I'll the first to admit I'm lucky I got a 2nd BE offer after my initial 3 years.  I was an ill disciplined, rebellious gong show of an OS. 

I thank the great ghost in the sky every day for a certain couple Chiefs and POs.  Im glad they saw something.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Apr 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> I think EITS was paraphrasing for you crayon-eaters. 😉


Did someone say "crayons"? Any red ones left?

BTW I received 21 Bn Orderly Sgts during the reign of JJJJJimmmyyy. Yep cause I wasn't wearing issue boots.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Apr 2022)

What's a Bn Orderly Sgt ?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Apr 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> What's a Bn Orderly Sgt ?


 Similar to a POD.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Did someone say "crayons"? Any red ones left?
> 
> BTW I received 21 Bn Orderly Sgts during the reign of JJJJJimmmyyy. Yep cause I wasn't wearing issue boots.


OS, I knew red crayons would draw you into the open! 😆


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Apr 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> What's a Bn Orderly Sgt ?


It’s a form of punishment for wayward infantry sergeants 😉


----------



## medicineman (24 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Did someone say "crayons"? Any red ones left?
> 
> BTW I received 21 Bn Orderly Sgts during the reign of JJJJJimmmyyy. Yep cause I wasn't wearing issue boots.


Sure it wasn't for your sock stripes not matching?


----------



## cld617 (24 Apr 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> The same argument about hair, etc applies to uniform.  Why not have a selection of hats and shoes and whatnot for each order of dress and allow people to choose what to wear for a particular order?



We already do. We have 3 different uniforms routinely on parades mixed together, which include 3 different head dresses and footwear differences between officers, NCM's and mbrs who have been in longer.


----------



## Furniture (24 Apr 2022)

cld617 said:


> We already do. We have 3 different uniforms routinely on parades mixed together, which include 3 different head dresses and footwear differences between officers, NCM's and *mbrs who have been in longer.*


I'm not sure what you mean by that. What different uniform parts are given to people who have been in longer?


----------



## cld617 (24 Apr 2022)

Furniture said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by that. What different uniform parts are given to people who have been in longer?


Old style ankle boots vs the newer clompers, which have been the target of more than one audacious new WO as a target for promoting and enforcing uniformity.


----------



## Furniture (24 Apr 2022)

cld617 said:


> Old style ankle boots vs the newer clompers, which have been the target of more than one audacious new WO as a target for promoting and enforcing uniformity.


That WO sounds like they are underemployed if they have time to come up with garbage like that, or are about three ranks higher than they should be...


----------



## dangerboy (24 Apr 2022)

cld617 said:


> Old style ankle boots vs the newer clompers, which have been the target of more than one audacious new WO as a target for promoting and enforcing uniformity.


I can honestly say I have never seen or even heard of people freaking out about that before.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Apr 2022)

dangerboy said:


> I can honestly say I have never seen or even heard of people freaking out about that before.


And neither have I nor did I ever make an issue of it. 

It’s issued kit after all.


----------



## Kilted (24 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> CWOs are Warrant Officers not NCOs.  There’s a difference.View attachment 70297


I had a CSM that would call himself an NCO, and I would tell him that he wasn't every time.  It annoyed him, but he knew that I was right.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Apr 2022)

Furniture said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by that. What different uniform parts are given to people who have been in longer?



44+ size waist DEU pants?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Apr 2022)

Kilted said:


> I had a CSM that would call himself an NCO, and I would tell him that he wasn't every time.  It annoyed him, but he knew that I was right.



If you know his email address, or still see him around...send this to him/print this off and hand him a copy every time you see him....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> If you know his email address, or still see him around...send this to him/print this off and hand him a copy every time you see him....
> 
> 
> View attachment 70325



When he gets tired of that one and yells "I never want to see this @*@(@*#@ thing again!!!!"...send him this one.

😁


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Apr 2022)

cld617 said:


> Old style ankle boots vs the newer clompers, which have been the target of more than one audacious new WO as a target for promoting and enforcing uniformity.


That's a thing? There's a 0% chance I'm replacing my old ankle boots for new ones unless the upper falls apart. I'd rather get them resoled, but to put the soles in that state would require more than 1 parade a year.


----------



## btrudy (25 Apr 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> That's a thing? There's a 0% chance I'm replacing my old ankle boots for new ones unless the upper falls apart. I'd rather get them resoled, but to put the soles in that state would require more than 1 parade a year.


Like a lot of "dress issues", no, it's not actually a thing, but some people like to make shit up impose said made up rules on people anyways, without real justification and often without any legal authority to do so.

See: Toques and Gloves Flowchart.


----------



## Booter (25 Apr 2022)

Where is the talk in the other direction? So your SNCOs see nonsensical horseshit- are they enforcing it while speaking truth back the other way up the chain? Or are they just enamoured with finding obscure things to make people choose which part of themselves should be cold? 

That’s a failure to look after the welfare of their people. A little higher up than “wrong hat”


----------



## Haggis (25 Apr 2022)

dangerboy said:


> I can honestly say I have never seen or even heard of people freaking out about that before.


Well, the Comd did just that during Op CADENCE in 2010.  He demanded absolute uniformity despite the fact that we had as many as six different versions of the CADPAT rain jacket, three different versions of the gas mask carrier, two different versions of body armour and 39 participating Reg F and P Res unit from the CA, RCAF and RCN and their associated headdresses.


----------



## stoker dave (25 Apr 2022)

Booter said:


> That’s a failure to look after the welfare of their people. A little higher up than “wrong hat”


I have forgotten how it works in DND / CAF, but in my (civilian) job ordering people to be out in weather for which they are not wearing appropriate clothing (e.g. out in cold weather without proper gloves and toques) is a safety violation and is against the law.   The company and site supervisors / superintendents could be charged and fined for doing such a thing.  And whoever ordered such a safety violation would likely be immediately terminated.


----------



## stoker dave (25 Apr 2022)

And to my above post, add that any employee has the right to refuse unsafe work conditions.  So if (for example) workers were ordered to work in cold weather without gloves, they have the right to refuse to work.  There shall be no retribution for such refusal. 

Indeed, where I work, workers know that they will be 100% supported by the entire company if they refuse to work or stop work due to unsafe conditions.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Apr 2022)

Haggis said:


> Well, the Comd did just that during Op CADENCE in 2010.  He demanded absolute uniformity despite the fact that we had as many as six different versions of the CADPAT rain jacket, three different versions of the gas mask carrier, two different versions of body armour and 39 participating Reg F and P Res unit from the CA, RCAF and RCN and their associated headdresses.


"Field caps are an escalation of force" as it's 30+ outside...


----------



## Furniture (25 Apr 2022)

stoker dave said:


> I have forgotten how it works in DND / CAF, but in my (civilian) job ordering people to be out in weather for which they are not wearing appropriate clothing (e.g. out in cold weather without proper gloves and toques) is a safety violation and is against the law.   The company and site supervisors / superintendents could be charged and fined for doing such a thing.  And whoever ordered such a safety violation would likely be immediately terminated.


The toque/gloves thing is the opposite of what you are talking about though. 

Troops are getting jacked up for having a toque on, and not wearing gloves. The "logic" being, if it's so cold you need to wear a toque, it's cold enough you need to be wearing gloves as well. I've never heard of anyone getting jacked up for a beret and gloves, unless it's so cold the member should be wearing a warmer headdress for safety.


----------



## Haggis (25 Apr 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> "Field caps are an escalation of force" as it's 30+ outside...


So was donning gloves within view of the public.  And don't forget the TF HQ will determine what colour lenses to wear in your BEW depending on the METREP that day.  That was shot down pretty quick!


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Apr 2022)

Haggis said:


> Well, the Comd did just that during Op CADENCE in 2010.  He demanded absolute uniformity despite the fact that we had as many as six different versions of the CADPAT rain jacket, three different versions of the gas mask carrier, two different versions of body armour and 39 participating Reg F and P Res unit from the CA, RCAF and RCN and their associated headdresses.



That is awesome... in it's awfulness.
.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Apr 2022)

> The "logic" being, if it's so cold you need to wear a toque, it's cold enough you need to be wearing gloves as well.



Seriously?  Did those people never attend cold weather orientation training, or miss the concept of "layering"?


----------



## btrudy (25 Apr 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Seriously?  Did those people never attend cold weather orientation training, or miss the concept of "layering"?


Never let logic or common sense or even operational training get in the way of some people's obsessive desire to micromanage every aspect of people's lives.

Because as well all know, what matters most in the military isn't doing the actual job, it's looking the same when we do it. /s


----------



## Furniture (25 Apr 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Seriously?  Did those people never attend cold weather orientation training, or miss the concept of "layering"?


Realistically I think it has nothing to do with safety or warmth, and everything to do with wanting people to wear berets rather than toques. 

For some reason the CAF is obsessed with stupid hats, that serve no functional purpose. We insist that people wear a useless, floppy piece of wool on their heads because it's "professional" looking, rather than issuing a functional hat like most of our allies do. I suspect that if we had comfortable, and functional hats for daily wear, most of the toque/gloves "issues" would go away.


----------



## btrudy (25 Apr 2022)

Wait, some people actually think berets look professional? 

Do these people have eyes?


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> Wait, some people actually think berets look professional?
> 
> Do these people have eyes?


What do you propose to replace it? In my mind as long as its clean and worn correctly its fine. 

Has anyone taken the time to teach people how to wear it correctly. 

Yes I have eyes - and a brain.


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Apr 2022)

I'll see all these dumb things and raise you "All vehicles with tarps shall remove them when the temp goes above +5C".  I can Name That Loon in two notes.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Apr 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> I see all these dumb things and raise you "All vehicles with tarps shall remove them when the temp goes above +5C".  I can Name That Loon in two notes.


All socks will have matching colour lines and All SHALL wear Olive Drab passion killers....oops I mean undergarments.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (25 Apr 2022)

Well from the sound of it the Air Force is about to implement ball caps (it's about time imo). Also here in Comox the Wing de-linked the tuque/gloves thing so it's a non issue here.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Apr 2022)

TB said:


> Well from the sound of it the Air Force is about to implement ball caps (it's about time imo). Also here in Comox the Wing de-linked the tuque/gloves thing so it's a non issue here.



Now if only the Army could 'get on the same team'


----------



## btrudy (25 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> What do you propose to replace it? In my mind as long as its clean and worn correctly its fine.
> 
> Has anyone taken the time to teach people how to wear it correctly.
> 
> Yes I have eyes - and a brain.


Well, in operational dress, a ballcap or field hat (whatever you guys call those floppy catpad ones) as an option. 

For DEUs and the like, there's a wide range of alternative styles which could be adopted. 



Also, ideally, I'd remove the requirement to wear headdress at all except for ceremonial events. You can't actually _need_ a hat to go outside after all. 

But overall, I will never be swayed from my opinion that berets are about the stupidest looking thing that I've ever been forced to place on my head. Thankfully I haven't had any requirement to do so since they authorized ballcaps as walking out dress in NCDs. Berets are just too damned ugly to be what I'd consider "professional looking".


----------



## Furniture (25 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> What do you propose to replace it? In my mind as long as its clean and worn correctly its fine.
> 
> Has anyone taken the time to teach people how to wear it correctly.
> 
> Yes I have eyes - and a brain.


I think something that serves a functional purpose would work, the USA seems to have figured it out.





Germany too...




We could even go with a bit closer to home.





The point being, berets are dumb hats, that serve no purpose beyond showing off a shiny badge, that could easily be attached to a far more practical hat. The hats could even be coloured or have coloured backing for badges, so everybody retains their unique hat colours.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Apr 2022)

Berets look fine and are low-maintenance.  Other than the backing where the badge sits, no need for reinforcements.  Can be folded and stored easily.


----------



## kev994 (25 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> You can't actually _need_ a hat to go outside after all.


We need an exploding head emoji on the 'like' bar for this exact reason. 🤯


----------



## btrudy (25 Apr 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Berets look fine and are low-maintenance.  Other than the backing where the badge sits, no need for reinforcements.  Can be folded and stored easily.


I'll agree with the low-maintenance part, of course. I very strongly disagree on the "look fine" portion.


----------



## Furniture (25 Apr 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Berets look fine and are low-maintenance.  Other than the backing where the badge sits, no need for reinforcements.  Can be folded and stored easily.


If the only reason to stick with a pointless hat is that it's low maintenance, then we should just drop the pointless hat from daily use. Either replace it, or drop the requirement for hats when outside, other than for sun protection, or cold protection.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Apr 2022)

A military beret (ie. not worn like an overinflated pancake) looks sharper than a ball cap.  Obviously people have different preferences; I think wedges look goofy.

As a boy scout I wore a stetson, so I have a fixed aversion to high-maintenance headgear.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Apr 2022)

Berets were chosen by the Corps for their ease of wear around and on armoured vehicles. No brims etc. I find a beret just as comfortable  to wear as a togue. Being wool, they help keep the head warm when wet. Convenient and easy to stow. Unfortunately, the shaping and wearing of a beret appears to be a science reserved for combat arms types. Everyone else wears them like chef's  hats. 😂

If we want to move to the realm of uselessness the C*** cap (wedge) is probably the most useless piece of headgear ever invented.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Apr 2022)

> If the only reason to stick with a pointless hat is that it's low maintenance



I experienced many parts of uniform clothing that were pointless; I wouldn't start with the hat.


----------



## kev994 (25 Apr 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> I think wedges look goofy.


It's only selling point is that it fits easily into the pocket. I'm not sure where I would store a ballcap.
Picture of people with wallets on their head


----------



## btrudy (25 Apr 2022)

Doesn't CADPAT got just as many if not more large pockets as NCDs do? Not exactly hard to stick a ballcap in there.


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Apr 2022)

As soon as ball hats are made universal, the whining will start that they can't be worn backwards, or the real hep cats will flip the brims up or sideways.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Apr 2022)

Nah, someone will just point out that it's traditional redneck white supremacist headgear and they'll go away quickly.


----------



## Remius (25 Apr 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> As soon as ball hats are made universal, the whining will start that they can't be worn backwards, or the real hep cats will flip the brims up or sideways.


Wouldn’t shock me given people getting upset about flipped up brims on bush caps old and new.


----------



## Furniture (25 Apr 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> As soon as ball hats are made universal, the whining will start that they can't be worn backwards, or the real hep cats will flip the brims up or sideways.


The RCN has been wearing them for years, it's never been an issue there...


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Apr 2022)

I'm a ball cap guy.  We have no issue with it for work dress in the RCN.  

I haven't worn my beret in forever nor do I know where it is... Hmmm


----------



## kev994 (25 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> Doesn't CADPAT got just as many if not more large pockets as NCDs do? Not exactly hard to stick a ballcap in there.


Perhaps, but there's no pockets on the flightsuit that will hold a ballcap, maybe they can make a fanny pack to go with it?


----------



## Furniture (25 Apr 2022)

kev994 said:


> Perhaps, but there's no pockets on the flightsuit that will hold a ballcap, maybe they can make a fanny pack to go with it?


I suppose an alternative would be no headdress in a flightsuit, unless for sun or cold protection. 

Unless you were really set on that fanny pack... It could be fun neon colours, just like we had in the 90s.


----------



## btrudy (25 Apr 2022)

Furniture said:


> Unless you were really set on that fanny pack... It could be fun neon colours, just like we had in the 90s.


It could match my new hair.


----------



## stoker dave (25 Apr 2022)

During Gulf War I, RCN ship's company were issued Tilley Hats. 

As regards to most-useless hat, I nominate the pillbox.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> I'll agree with the low-maintenance part, of course. I very strongly disagree on the "look fine" portion.


You have your opinions and we have ours. Sometimes we don't get a choice of what to wear.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> It could match my new hair.


they make them in gray?


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Apr 2022)

Truly, why even have a mandated head dress for times other than ceremonial ? 

What's the point ?  Provide the option and let the member choose.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Apr 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Truly, why even have a mandated head dress for times other than ceremonial ?
> 
> What's the point ?  Provide the option and let the member choose.


In a way I agree. Except on operations. Then its "you're gonna wear what we tell you"


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Apr 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Truly, why even have a mandated head dress for times other than ceremonial ?
> 
> What's the point ?  Provide the option and let the member choose.









(I couldn't find the 'Apolcalypse Now' clip on here)


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> In a way I agree. Except on operations. Then its "you're gonna wear what we tell you"



True, helmets and boonnie hats ect ect


----------



## kratz (25 Apr 2022)

Furniture said:


> The RCN has been wearing them for years, it's never been an issue there...


Well...TBH, for the longest time, we couldn't wear the ball cap between Stad and Dockyard., or Windsor Park.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Apr 2022)

Even on ops, same argument applies.  If you don't need ballistic protection or protection from direct sunlight, and headgear adds unwanted heat retention...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Apr 2022)

Eagle_Eye_View said:


> Well from the sound of it the Air Force is about to implement ball caps (it's about time imo). Also here in Comox the Wing de-linked the tuque/gloves thing so it's a non issue here.


They are late to the party. Comox SNAGS, 409 Sqn, 1980. I wore my Sqn ball cap, white coveralls and flight jacket from home to work and back all the time.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> Never let logic or common sense or even operational training get in the way of some people's obsessive desire to micromanage every aspect of people's lives.
> 
> Because as well all know, what matters most in the military isn't doing the actual job, it's looking the same when we do it. /s



Having spent a pretty decent amount of time In the field and deployed over 32 years and change, I’d say that is “more true” in garrison / base-side than doing operational stuff. 

It also doesn’t seem to be the way in operational Air Force Sqns from my experience in them.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Apr 2022)

Eagle_Eye_View said:


> Well from the sound of it the Air Force is about to implement ball caps (it's about time imo). Also here in Comox the Wing de-linked the tuque/gloves thing so it's a non issue here.



Yup; it’s been formally approved.  Hopefully the hat that is chosen is comfortable and fits in a leg pocket.  


daftandbarmy said:


> Now if only the Army could 'get on the same team'



Our techs/AEREs wear Sqn ball hats with LWCC/ECU now…


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Apr 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> If we want to move to the realm of uselessness the C*** cap (wedge) is probably the most useless piece of headgear ever invented.



I don’t mind them at all;  fit easily into my leg pocket, they breath more than a beret and I can wear them with anything except LWCC/ECU which I never wear.   2 of the best things about wearing flight suits; no beret and no boot bands.

Like a beret, there’s a “way” to wear a wedge; the folks that wear them daily mostly get it.  Folks who wear them with DEU only…maybe not so much.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Apr 2022)

kev994 said:


> It's only selling point is that it fits easily into the pocket. I'm not sure where I would store a ballcap.
> Picture of people with wallets on their head



We had some nice Nike golf hats for Sqn hats not long ago.   They fit in the leg pocket really nice and they were comfy as they come.  The ol switcharoo game gets old though…


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I don’t mind them at all;  fit easily into my leg pocket, they breath more than a beret and I can wear them with anything except LWCC/ECU which I never wear.   2 of the best things about wearing flight suits; no beret and no boot bands.
> 
> Like a beret, there’s a “way” to wear a wedge; the folks that wear them daily mostly get it.  Folks who wear them with DEU only…maybe not so much.


My grandfather told me that you don’t ‘wear’ a wedge, you ‘stand beside it.’ 🧠


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Apr 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> They are late to the party. Comox SNAGS, 409 Sqn, 1980. I wore my Sqn ball cap, white coveralls and flight jacket from home to work and back all the time.



I like this picture for showing "how things should be" in an operational unit.  Pic is of a crew from VP 415, fall 1968 on the ramp at RAF Kinloss (my Dad's crew, he's in the pic).

There's every rank from Senior Officer to Jnr NCM in the pic;  some in DEU, some wearing forge caps, wedges, ball hats, no hats.  Jackets on, off, unzippered.   One of the DEU Officers even has _gasp_ a hand in a pocket.  And....who gives a shit, they're not part of the Ceremonial Guard. 

Their having wets on the ramp and celebrating something operationally relevant.  I doubt they would have cared if the MAG Boss was "mad" at the pic, either.

I've got a few similar pics from the LRP world (minus the beers and forge caps, sadly);  none of us said "oh wait, either everyone wears their hat or NO ONE does".


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I like this picture for showing "how things should be" in an operational unit.  Pic is of a crew from VP 415, fall 1968 on the ramp at RAF Kinloss (my Dad's crew, he's in the pic).
> 
> There's every rank from Senior Officer to Jnr NCM in the pic;  some in DEU, some wearing forge caps, wedges, ball hats, no hats.  Jackets on, off, unzippered.   One of the DEU Officers even has _gasp_ a hand in a pocket.  And....who gives a shit, they're not part of the Ceremonial Guard.
> 
> ...



I love it!  But the RCAF, and AFs in general, have a history of placing operations above apperance.  Jaunty hats, first names and all that.  

Sadly in the older services we are, RCN stay put, we tend to be overly concerned about what and how Nelson or Wellington did what they did and what they wore.  

Again read the book Champagne Navy ... Basically fighter pilots with speed boats, with lots of guns and torpedoes.

You should see the calls in RCN alumni groups for a return to square rig... _Shivers_


----------



## FSTO (25 Apr 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I love it!  But the RCAF, and AFs in general, have a history of placing operations above apperance.  Jaunty hats, first names and all that.
> 
> Sadly in the older services we are, RCN stay put, we tend to be overly concerned about what and how Nelson or Wellington did what they did and what they wore.
> 
> ...


I think the square rig looks quite sharp on the parade square. And it doesn't need to be a jumper, it can easily be a zippered jacket or something similar to the Bundesmarine.



But that goes against the Canadian ethos that we all have to look uniformly horrible and uncomfortable on parade.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Apr 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I love it!  But the RCAF, and AFs in general, have a history of placing operations above apperance.  Jaunty hats, first names and all that



That’s pretty true.  Not sure about now but it was pretty close in the cbt arms back in the day at the Patrol/Section level; a little more relaxed especially in the field.  




Halifax Tar said:


> Sadly in the older services we are, RCN stay put, we tend to be overly concerned about what and how Nelson or Wellington did what they did and what they wore.
> 
> Again read the book Champagne Navy ... Basically fighter pilots with speed boats, with lots of guns and torpedoes.
> 
> You should see the calls in RCN alumni groups for a return to square rig... _Shivers_



I guess on the ship it’s different?  You’re never really away from your HOD/CHOD and the eyes of the XO, Cox’n?

Looking for a PDF copy for my Kobo ereader…that looks like a good read 🤙🏻


----------



## FSTO (25 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> That’s pretty true.  Not sure about now but it was pretty close in the cbt arms back in the day at the Patrol/Section level; a little more relaxed especially in the field.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To be honest, how much variation can you get with NCD's? You either have the jacket on or jacket off. Back in the day when you could wear shorts and ugly sandals there was a bit more uniqueness.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Apr 2022)

FSTO said:


> To be honest, how much variation can you get with NCD's? You either have the jacket on or jacket off. Back in the day when you could wear shorts and ugly sandals there was a bit more uniqueness.



The navy definitely seems to offer the least privacy even on operations.  I remember being on Ex in the summers, occupying an OP screen. The OP was all business, but back in the OP base the troops would relax some.   Get some sun, get the green paint off for a bit.  If someone wanted to “air out” in their gitch for a bit, no one really cared.  Have your stuff next to you and BPT get sorted out quick of course.  We still had wet messes, crew cooked rations were the bomb…no one cared if someone wore a US bush hat or jungle boots or whatever.  

There isn’t a real “relax area” comparable on a warship I guess.


----------



## FSTO (25 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> The navy definitely seems to offer the least privacy even on operations.  I remember being on Ex in the summers, occupying an OP screen. The OP was all business, but back in the OP base the troops would relax some.   Get some sun, get the green paint off for a bit.  If someone wanted to “air out” in their gitch for a bit, no one really cared.  Have your stuff next to you and BPT get sorted out quick of course.  We still had wet messes, crew cooked rations were the bomb…no one cared if someone wore a US bush hat or jungle boots or whatever.
> 
> There isn’t a real “relax area” comparable on a warship I guess.


There is still the steel beach. Or has the safety monitors taken that away as well?


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Apr 2022)

FSTO said:


> I think the square rig looks quite sharp on the parade square. And it doesn't need to be a jumper, it can easily be a zippered jacket or something similar to the Bundesmarine.
> 
> View attachment 70342
> 
> But that goes against the Canadian ethos that we all have to look uniformly horrible and uncomfortable on parade.



I think I can safely safely represent the NCMs in Navy DEU with a resounding: PASS, but thank you for the offer. 



Eye In The Sky said:


> I guess on the ship it’s different?  You’re never really away from your HOD/CHOD and the eyes of the XO, Cox’n?
> 
> Looking for a PDF copy for my Kobo ereader…that looks like a good read 🤙🏻



At sea it's pretty much dress for the weather and as you need, making sure you have your second layer always close to you.  Second layer being your NCD coat. 

Unless we're conducting an evolution like entering or leaving harbor then command will prescribe a dress.


----------



## Kilted (25 Apr 2022)

FSTO said:


> There is still the steel beach. Or has the safety monitors taken that away as well?


Surely Op Honour must have gotten rid of that.


----------



## FSTO (25 Apr 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I think I can safely safely represent the NCMs in Navy DEU with a resounding: PASS, but thank you for the offer.


What is the reasoning that you hate it so much?


----------



## Furniture (25 Apr 2022)

FSTO said:


> What is the reasoning that you hate it so much?


I can't answer for @Halifax Tar , but to my mind it looks silly, and old fashioned. At least the modern RCN DEU is modeled on a suit, so it's from the realm of civilian semi-formal attire, rather than the 1800s. 

I find it interesting that the two groups who want to see it brought back, are a) retired sailors, and b) people who would never have to wear it (Officers, CPO/PO). You don't hear Jr. personnel asking for the uniform back, which tells me that the people who would have to wear it, don't want it.


----------



## btrudy (25 Apr 2022)

Furniture said:


> I can't answer for @Halifax Tar , but to my mind it looks silly, and old fashioned. At least the modern RCN DEU is modeled on a suit, so it's from the realm of civilian semi-formal attire, rather than the 1800s.
> 
> I find it interesting that the two groups who want to see it brought back, are a) retired sailors, and b) people who would never have to wear it (Officers, CPO/PO). You don't hear Jr. personnel asking for the uniform back, which tells me that the people who would have to wear it, don't want it.


For what it's worth, this officer doesn't want to see them back. I'd be embarrassed just to be seen standing next to someone wearing it.


----------



## FSTO (25 Apr 2022)

^^
By the above reasoning all uniforms are somewhat silly. 
To each you’re own. 
They’ll never come back so it’s a moot discussion.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> The navy definitely seems to offer the least privacy even on operations.  I remember being on Ex in the summers, occupying an OP screen. The OP was all business, but back in the OP base the troops would relax some.   Get some sun, get the green paint off for a bit.  If someone wanted to “air out” in their gitch for a bit, no one really cared.  Have your stuff next to you and BPT get sorted out quick of course.  We still had wet messes, crew cooked rations were the bomb…no one cared if someone wore a US bush hat or jungle boots or whatever.
> 
> There isn’t a real “relax area” comparable on a warship I guess.



I guess that things are a bit different when you're afloat on your house 24/7, and switching off might result in you losing it and everyone aboard


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Apr 2022)

FSTO said:


> What is the reasoning that you hate it so much?



It's a silly old uniform with no connection to today's RCN.  It screams wanna be British. 

The further we can distance ourselves from our British trappings the better from this Chief's perspective.



Furniture said:


> I can't answer for @Halifax Tar , but to my mind it looks silly, and old fashioned. At least the modern RCN DEU is modeled on a suit, so it's from the realm of civilian semi-formal attire, rather than the 1800s.
> 
> I find it interesting that the two groups who want to see it brought back, are a) retired sailors, and b) people who would never have to wear it (Officers, CPO/PO). You don't hear Jr. personnel asking for the uniform back, which tells me that the people who would have to wear it, don't want it.



For what it's worth the only desire I've seen for its return comes from the weird room and the ancient mariners from yesteryear.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Apr 2022)

> For what it's worth, this officer doesn't want to see them back. I'd be embarrassed just to be seen standing next to someone wearing it.



So black pumps and a straw hat with a long ribbon for shore-going rig are not coming back?


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Apr 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> It's a silly old uniform with no connection to today's RCN.  It screams wanna be British.
> 
> The further we can distance ourselves from our British trappings the better from this Chief's perspective.
> 
> ...


#notthewholeweirdroom 

White dress uniforms look nice when they are clean but are dirt magnets. Also we would issue them in polyester or something so in addition to being cheap looking you would sweat like a lunatic. Also, who wants to look like the crackerjack box?

I also hated the executive curl return; came at the same time we had no money for fuel and parts, but some ass clown spent a few million to add a loop onto the ranks which are directional, and you will occasionally get issued two left or right ones.

People that come up with this stuff like looking at it, but don't have to wear it. I'd probably have more time to worry about what my uniform looks like if I wasn't doing 5 peoples jobs. At this point the CAF is lucky I'm actually working while at home instead of curling up into a defeated ball, let alone wearing pants and following the general grooming standard (out of habit). 

When morale fails, at least there is still hate and spite to fall back on in the cubicle farm, because otherwise the bureaucracy wins.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Apr 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> #notthewholeweirdroom
> 
> White dress uniforms look nice when they are clean but are dirt magnets. Also we would issue them in polyester or something so in addition to being cheap looking you would sweat like a lunatic. Also, who wants to look like the crackerjack box?
> 
> ...



Scottish Regiments enter the chat, swaying at 110 paces/minute, crying 'ya big sissie Sassenachs!'


----------



## FSTO (25 Apr 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> It's a silly old uniform with no connection to today's RCN. It screams wanna be British.


Hmm, so the (enter most of the worlds Navies) are Britishphiles?
I understand your disdain but don’t agree with it. 
Cheers!


----------



## btrudy (25 Apr 2022)

FSTO said:


> Hmm, so the (enter most of the worlds Navies) are Britishphiles?
> I understand your disdain but don’t agree with it.
> Cheers!



Quite a lot of the world has yet to recover from the lingering influence of British colonialism.


----------



## Haggis (25 Apr 2022)

FSTO said:


> They’ll never come back so it’s a moot discussion.


Never say "never" or "always". Ask the Army about pips and crowns.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> Quite a lot of the world has yet to recover from the lingering influence of British colonialism.


And Russian and German aggression. 

We can point fingers all day long but that accomplishes nothing.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Apr 2022)

Tradition is peer pressure from dead people.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Apr 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Tradition is peer pressure from dead people.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Apr 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Tradition is peer pressure from dead people.


That would depend on what the tradition is. Some traditions are good. The Troops Christmas Dinner being but one.

Should we abandon that and many other good traditions in order to satisfy the woke?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> That would depend on what the tradition is. Some traditions are good. The Troops Christmas Dinner being but one.
> 
> Should we abandon that and many other good traditions in order to satisfy the woke?








I…I can’t believe you called it that.   In this day and age it is improper to use “troops” “soldiers” “Christmas” or “Holiday”.   I believe there was  also an enquiry convened to study if the word “dinner” harms anyone, including turkeys, in any way.  😁

These days it is called a Jnr Ranks Appreciation Dinner.  At my Wing, not all Jnr Ranks are allowed to attend because it costs too much money.   It doesn’t happen on a Friday so as to make it more enjoyable.   The bar wasn’t open before the dinner started.

It’s a far cry from the really good memories I have from going to the Mens, later Soldiers, Christmas Dinner 30 some years ago as a young Tpr, which were some of the best “social nights” of the year back in the day.

Yes we are letting some important things go and it honestly seems like no one GAF anymore.


----------



## btrudy (26 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> That would depend on what the tradition is. Some traditions are good. The Troops Christmas Dinner being but one.
> 
> Should we abandon that and many other good traditions in order to satisfy the woke?


Tradition being peer pressure from dead people doesn't mean that it's an inherently bad thing.

It just means that we need to be mindful about which traditions we continue doing (e.g. Remembrance Day), which traditions we let fall by the wayside (e.g. rum rations), and which we adapt as needed (e.g. Crossing the Line Ceremony, Dress Instructions). We should examine what we do on basically a continual basis, to see if those things are still working out for us, and if they're not, give 'em an overhaul or the old heave-ho.

If the _only_ reason that we're doing something is because it's a tradition, well then that's just peer pressure from dead people. If we're doing it because it's a tradition that people like and which raises esprit de corps and isn't otherwise harmful, then have at 'er.


----------



## FSTO (26 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Yes we are letting some important things go and it honestly seems like no one GAF anymore.


Yep. We’re so concentrated on doing enough with not enough because of decisions made in the name of efficiencies that some vital things are falling to the wayside. This is effecting us Operationally, Administratively, Culturally, and yes the bonds the are passed on generationally and not in a good way.


----------



## Kilted (26 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> That would depend on what the tradition is. Some traditions are good. The Troops Christmas Dinner being but one.
> 
> Should we abandon that and many other good traditions in order to satisfy the woke?


My unit still called it the Men's Christmas Dinner till about three years ago. Now it's the soldiers Christmas Dinner, although people have tried to call it a festive dinner, but a lot of people still call it the Men's Christmas Dinner.


----------



## Furniture (26 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Yes we are letting some important things go and it honestly seems like no one GAF anymore.


The problem with the "good times" was there was always a risk of someone getting drunk and doing something stupid. Usually it wasn't too serious, but it was guaranteed at every event. 

Over the last 20_ish_ years the CAF has started cracking down more and more on alcohol abuse/use, and has become more risk adverse when it comes to media headlines. That has meant that bosses don't want to risk their careers by letting their pers have "too much" fun, and at the same time pers in general have become more worried about throwing away their own careers after a few drinks. The end result is, people don't want to socialize too much at work events, because there is too much potential cost to a slip of the tongue, or a drunken argument. 

Barring a shooting war, I don't see any of that changing for the better anytime soon.


----------



## KevinB (26 Apr 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Wait... You've witnessed people bringing personal firearms and a military run range qualification or practice ?


I had three LCol's do that (all regular force)- one of them encouraged most of the unit to do so, another Col I know even took a personal handgun on deployment (I suspect he didn't get an ATT) - it is amazing what one can stick in with the sigs crypto 
  What can I say, it was big in the 90's...
    Maybe even in the 2000's too 

I'm long out and statue of limitations etc


----------



## lenaitch (26 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Because everyone has “stupid” rules, it’s okay to have ours and we don’t need to try and remove the silliness?


[Sorry for the late reply - been busy.  Trying to catch up with the thread]

I put the word 'stupid' in quotes for a reason.  Somebody, somewhere will find pretty much any rule 'stupid', or that rules are only for stupid people, and they aren't.


PuckChaser said:


> That's a thing? There's a 0% chance I'm replacing my old ankle boots for new ones unless the upper falls apart. I'd rather get them resoled, but to put the soles in that state would require more than 1 parade a year.


Wait.  According to some, you march and parade so much it is a serious time thief and keeps you from operational stuff.


Furniture said:


> Realistically I think it has nothing to do with safety or warmth, and everything to do with wanting people to wear berets rather than toques.
> 
> For some reason the CAF is obsessed with stupid hats, that serve no functional purpose. We insist that people wear a useless, floppy piece of wool on their heads because it's "professional" looking, rather than issuing a functional hat like most of our allies do. I suspect that if we had *comfortable, and functional hats *for daily wear, most of the toque/gloves "issues" would go away.


While you might land on a higher level of acceptance, finding that magic hat might be elusive, given the wide range of roles, duties and environments.  Ball hats for sun protection is a bit of a stretch, given that they only provide protection for the face but not the ears and back of the neck.  The OPP went to 'stetsons' for a few years under the guise of sun protection, spurred by a member making a WSIB claim for skin cancer.  The hat lasted a few years.  Tilly-type hats are issued to some but without any kind of form they truly do look like crap after a short while.


----------



## SupersonicMax (26 Apr 2022)

lenaitch said:


> Ball hats for sun protection is a bit of a stretch, given that they only provide protection for the face but not the ears and back of the neck.


Sunscreen still exists.


----------



## lenaitch (26 Apr 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Sunscreen still exists.


Yes, but then you get into the argument whether it should be employer provided (seriously, some members are that cheap.  Arguments get raised from time-to-time about a socks and underwear allowance).  All of this missed the nexus between said ailment and duty time.  A day shift, where a goodly portion is spent in a car (with a roof), followed by donning of shorts, grabbing of beer and sitting outside - without a hat.

I've lost touch but there was some talk of issuing sunscreen to marine operators and m/c riders, but don't know where it landed.  Short-sleeve vs. long sleeve shirts is member's option, for the same reason.


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Apr 2022)

I thank the CAF for the free insect repellent over the years…and the third earlobe…


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Apr 2022)

> the lingering influence of British colonialism.



Parliaments, common law, partial eradication of slavery...the horror.  Yes, I know there were some bad things in the mix.  But it won't do to only add up one side of a ledger.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Apr 2022)

> If the _only_ reason that we're doing something is because it's a tradition...



...it's because we've forgotten why it started; otherwise, we'd know why we were keeping, modifying, or removing it.


----------



## Navy_Pete (26 Apr 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> That would depend on what the tradition is. Some traditions are good. The Troops Christmas Dinner being but one.
> 
> Should we abandon that and many other good traditions in order to satisfy the woke?



A lot of things became tradition started for a good reason. Polishing boots? Keeps them from falling apart in the mud, good idea Napolean!

Short hair/shaving and other general cleanliness? Keeps off lice and other disesases from living in close quarters, good idea Romans!

Everyone on the same side has some kind of identifying uniform so they don't stab their winger by accident, and so they can fight in formation with the same equipment? Good idea too.

Sometimes the practical reasons for doing things no longer apply, or there is a different context, so tradition is a generally a stupid reason to keep doing things just because. In most cases you can just adopt it to the new context, and maybe have a better solution (like a dedicated boot paste that is much better at protecting your boots, because it's not just designed to be shiny).

I think there are lots of good traditions (like the Xmas dinner) which, if done right, can be great to build morale, unit cohesion etc, but if folks are just going thru the motions to do a thing because it's tradition, that's arguably worse. The ones on ships are still a lot of fun with the officers doing all the serving and cleaning up (with the cooks supervising) but even those have shifted a fair bit as they used to be big booze ups. Doesn't translate to doing it ashore though, and personally prefer a smaller potluck with the section, vice a big giant catered meal.


----------



## RangerRay (26 Apr 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Parliaments, common law, partial eradication of slavery...the horror.  Yes, I know there were some bad things in the mix.  But it won't do to only add up one side of a ledger.



After seeing how French, Spanish, Belgian, German, American etc. colonialism treated indigenous populations, British colonialism looks downright enlightened. Not to excuse any of the racism of the time and other bad bits, but it could have been much worse.


----------



## btrudy (26 Apr 2022)

Furniture said:


> The problem with the "good times" was there was always a risk of someone getting drunk and doing something stupid. Usually it wasn't too serious, but it was guaranteed at every event.
> 
> Over the last 20_ish_ years the CAF has started cracking down more and more on alcohol abuse/use, and has become more risk adverse when it comes to media headlines. That has meant that bosses don't want to risk their careers by letting their pers have "too much" fun, and at the same time pers in general have become more worried about throwing away their own careers after a few drinks. The end result is, people don't want to socialize too much at work events, because there is too much potential cost to a slip of the tongue, or a drunken argument.
> 
> Barring a shooting war, I don't see any of that changing for the better anytime soon.



I think it is really really important here to emphasize just how many of those "getting drunk and doing something stupid" events resulted in sexual assault or misconduct. 

Go have a look through the court martial decisions database. I'd ballpark a good 80-90% of the sexual assault ones (or stuff that was actually a sexual assault but got plead down to assault) had intoxication as one of the leading contributing factors, and probably a good half or more of those involved people who got drunk at the mess. 



Brad Sallows said:


> ...it's because we've forgotten why it started; otherwise, we'd know why we were keeping, modifying, or removing it.



Inertia alone is not a good reason to keep doing something. We should be examining what we're doing and seeing if the reasons we're doing it is still valid. If so, keep it, if not get rid of it (or change it). 

If we literally forget why and can't figure it out, well then it probably can't have been that important now can it?


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Apr 2022)

> If we literally forget why and can't figure it out, well then it probably can't have been that important now can it?



"Chesterton's Fence" still applies.

"That bolt doesn't look like it's fastening anything.  It's just sitting there screwed into a chunk of metal.  I guess I can just remove it."


----------



## Kilted (26 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> I think it is really really important here to emphasize just how many of those "getting drunk and doing something stupid" events resulted in sexual assault or misconduct.
> 
> Go have a look through the court martial decisions database. I'd ballpark a good 80-90% of the sexual assault ones (or stuff that was actually a sexual assault but got plead down to assault) had intoxication as one of the leading contributing factors, and probably a good half or more of those involved people who got drunk at the mess.
> 
> ...


 I guess it comes down to how much we are willing to trust our people around alcohol.  I have started to see more duty people put in place and earlier last call times for some events.  I'm still waiting for the day when the government trys to do something to fix sexual harassment, without actually doing anything and disbands all messes.  If it can happen to the airborne...


----------



## KevinB (26 Apr 2022)

Kilted said:


> I guess it comes down to how much we are willing to trust our people around alcohol.  I have started to see more duty people put in place and earlier last call times for some events.  I'm still waiting for the day when the government trys to do something to fix sexual harassment, without actually doing anything and disbands all messes.  If it can happen to the airborne...


My experience is when you treat people like adults - they (for the most part) act like adults, when you coddle them like a child, they act like a child.
   That said 99% of the trouble I got in when in the CAF was alcohol related - bored soldiers with access to alcohol is never a good mix.


----------



## btrudy (26 Apr 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> "Chesterton's Fence" still applies.
> 
> "That bolt doesn't look like it's fastening anything.  It's just sitting there screwed into a chunk of metal.  I guess I can just remove it."



Now, this example I really like. Because it perfectly exemplifies my point. Not really yours.

You don't go around removing bolts willy-nilly. But if you want a good fence, you examine it determine the purpose of the components, evaluate how well they're doing that job, and eliminate or adapt as needed.

If a bolt is literally just screwed into a chunk of metal, it's entirely possible that it was originally installed in order to attach something to the fence that has since been removed. That is after all, the purpose of bolts: to attach components together. It may have served a purpose at one point, but it doesn't any more, and thus continuing spend time and money maintaining that bolt is wasteful.

Or, there may be a bolt that did the trick back in the day, but now due to changing circumstances it's failing on a regular basis, and thus a new design is needed.

I am not proposing that we get rid of all traditions. I am proposing that we be mindful, examine the traditions we have, and eliminate or adapt those traditions that are doing more harm than good, or which don't provide any actual benefit anymore.

And yes, if upon examination, we literally can't figure out why something was implemented, then there probably wasn't a good reason for it.


----------



## Navy_Pete (26 Apr 2022)

KevinB said:


> My experience is when you treat people like adults - they (for the most part) act like adults, when you coddle them like a child, they act like a child.
> That said 99% of the trouble I got in when in the CAF was alcohol related - bored soldiers with access to alcohol is never a good mix.


I don't think that's a CAF problem, bored people with booze can always go wrong, especially a band of mostly young guys.

Similarly, the 'drinking culture' in the CAF has changed a fair bit, but alcohol is still pretty prevalent in society and can cause lots of issues.

The CAF was still more restrained than the hard boozing I saw at uni or had gotten up to on my own before joining up. The fact that folks are behaving poorly when drunk and facing consequence is a good thing, not necessarily an indictment of the entire CAF. (The recent example of the MP CWO getting promoted despite being a drunken bellend who was CM is an example of the CAF shitting the bed as an institution).

The CAF is made up of Canadians, so unfortunately will mean people will get drunk/high, misbehave and/or break the law, just like other Canadians. Expecting perfection is ridiculous, expecting people face consequences for failing to uphold either our ethical standards or face criminal charges is a completely reasonable yardstick that we should be using to beat people over the head with every time they try and protect their winger, gloss over misdeeds or otherwise be a greasy bastard.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Apr 2022)

> And yes, if upon examination, we literally can't figure out why something was implemented, then there probably wasn't a good reason for it.



If you don't understand something, your opinion on its utility is just something you make up.


----------



## btrudy (26 Apr 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> If you don't understand something, your opinion on its utility is just something you make up.


Look, I'm going to go out on a limb here and make an assumption that the CAF collectively isn't a bunch of absolute morons.

We as an organization are perfectly capable of making reasonable assessments on the utility, purpose, and impact of our organizational policies and directives. And sometimes that assessment is going to come back with "serves no actual purpose". You can't pretend like no one in the CAF has ever implemented something solely due to their personal preference.

If we let the "Chesterton's Fence" example guide our decision making processes, then the end result of that would be that the only untouchable policies we have are the ones which are literally useless


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Apr 2022)

Sure, so almost all of the time people should be able to answer the question.  But people can be lazy and take shortcuts.

And it still doesn't follow that just because no-one can figure out why something was done, that it had no purpose in the first place.


----------



## btrudy (26 Apr 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> expecting people face consequences for failing to uphold either our ethical standards or face criminal charges is a completely reasonable yardstick that we should be using to beat people over the head with every time they try and protect their winger, gloss over misdeeds or otherwise be a greasy bastard.


This is why we need to start firing or demoting the people who mishandle sexual misconduct cases, not just those who commit them. Trust in the system will never be restored (restored is perhaps the wrong term given that that implies the system could be trusted at some point in the past) as long as the people in charge can continue to try and abuse it in order to shield their buddies with no consequence to themselves.

Dismantling the Old Boys Club will require some demolishing.


----------



## Navy_Pete (26 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> And yes, if upon examination, we literally can't figure out why something was implemented, then there probably wasn't a good reason for it.


Bit of a sidebar, but I've heard that a few times and it's a reflection of the persons lack of knowledge, not necessarily the requirement. Lots of times there is a good arguement that if you don't know what something is for, but it's not doing any harm just leave it alone.

Sometimes even without knowing the origins of a tradition, you can still keep something and make it worthwhile. For example, Xmas itself, (which was put on 25 December by Constantine to help convert the pagans on the Saturnalia feast) is no longer a religious celebration for a lot of people, but you don't need to be a practicing Christian to enjoy a get together with your family and provide a celebration for the kids.

I don't think anyone has open bars or cheap booze at events anymore, but holiday dinners etc is all pretty common in most workplaces. You don't need to cancel them just because some people don't behave.

Edit to add: agree the old boys club will need some demolishing, but also needs to start by doing things like 360 reviews much earlier. If someone has gotten to a CO job by being an abusive arsehole that probably started as a Jr. Officer when they saw people behaving badly but getting results rewarded, and they've probably already done a whack of damage.

Having said that, needs to be a fair process if there are consequences; demotion should only be done by a CM but lots of admin actions that can also be done which are pretty serious on their own. Reading the media story on the racism in the CAF study, then reading the actual study showed a massive gulf between the study and the press conference conclusions and some straight up manufactured talking points, which was pretty funny when one of the recommendations was the 'CAF become a data driven organization' (which it really is at higher levels, and 30 potential white supremescists in an organization of 70k+ doesn't represent a statistically significant number).


----------



## btrudy (26 Apr 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Sometimes even without knowing the origins of a tradition, you can still keep something and make it worthwhile. For example, Xmas itself, (which was put on 25 December by Constantine to help convert the pagans on the Saturnalia feast) is no longer a religious celebration for a lot of people, but you don't need to be a practicing Christian to enjoy a get together with your family and provide a celebration for the kids.



And this is an example of the original purpose no longer being valid, but it still being worthwhile so we'll keep it around (or, those who find it enjoyable keep it around, and others don't).

All I want is for us to be mindful of the things we're doing, and to stop doing things which are doing more harm than good (including the opportunity cost of what we otherwise could have been spending our time on).


----------



## Weinie (26 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> Look, I'm going to go out on a limb here and make an assumption that the CAF collectively isn't a bunch of absolute morons.
> 
> *We as an organization are perfectly capable of making reasonable assessments on the utility, purpose, and impact of our organizational policies and directives.* And sometimes that assessment is going to come back with "serves no actual purpose". You can't pretend like no one in the CAF has ever implemented something solely due to their personal preference.
> 
> If we let the "Chesterton's Fence" example guide our decision making processes, then the end result of that would be that the only untouchable policies we have are the ones which are literally useless


While I agree with your statement above, CAF history in the last thirty years says those eternal agencies that can influence our policies and directives often disagree, whether through agendas, financial/political considerations, scandals etc. and subsequently that policies/decisions are imposed. Though you are talking to dress regs, the confidence in our (CAF) collective ability to offer the best advice/guidance on CAF matters has been continually eroded. Thus, we seek to win the "small" things where we still have some semblance of control, whilst trembling to tread where we have been slapped down.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Apr 2022)

btrudy said:


> I think it is really really important here to emphasize just how many of those "getting drunk and doing something stupid" events resulted in sexual assault or misconduct.
> 
> Go have a look through the court martial decisions database. I'd ballpark a good 80-90% of the sexual assault ones (or stuff that was actually a sexual assault but got plead down to assault) had intoxication as one of the leading contributing factors, and probably a good half or more of those involved people who got drunk at the mess.



The important part of this that you’re omitting though is that not everyone goes bonkers in the mess, not everyone who drinks commits crimes like impaired driving, sexual assault etc.

So, those of us who don’t go bonkers on alcohol etc, should be have to pay for someone else’s stupidity?  

If anyone answers yes, then we need to:

- get rid of cars because some people drive impaired.  If some do, all must stupid driving. 

- get rid of doctors.  Some of them make mistakes, and some of them misdiagnose patients, perform the wrong procedures etc. 

- get rid of air and sea travel.  Captains In both services have made mistakes that have killed people.  

OR…punish the people who break the laws, rules and policies.


----------



## btrudy (26 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> The important part of this that you’re omitting though is that not everyone goes bonkers in the mess, not everyone who drinks commits crimes like impaired driving, sexual assault etc.
> 
> So, those of us who don’t go bonkers on alcohol etc, should be have to pay for someone else’s stupidity?
> 
> ...



Now you're just being disingenuous.

I am arguing that we need to examine the things we're doing, evaluate the effect they have, and change what we're doing if needed.

This involves measuring the negative and positive impacts of the things we do, and weighing them against alternatives. Not this absurd strawman argument you've crafted that focused entirely upon possible risks without any regard for the benefits of those things that do have risks.

Please at least attempt to make your arguments in good faith.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Apr 2022)

I’m being overboard, like you are.   Wide brush punishments for all because of the actions of others make my blood boil, because I am 51 and don’t need some other adult to tell me how to adult.


----------



## btrudy (26 Apr 2022)

... and I literally have not suggested the imposition of any wide brush punishments. 

Quit with the strawmanning: stop making arguments about things that you're just pretending or imagining I said, and maybe address the things I'm actually saying here.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Apr 2022)

I did.  I quoted your fucking post.  After that, I added my comments that I wanted to.  I used examples to demonstrate "punishing all for the failings of some" is a stupid idea, and also to demonstrate that individuals should be held accountable for their actions...not the rest of us.  I did it to counter your point that I quoted; I thought the point was pretty clear - "punish the guilty, not the masses".  If there are 50,000 "mess events" in the CAF in 2022, and 25 sexual assault / misconduct charges stem from those events and 100 cases of alcohol misuse/conduct, that's not a reason to not have mess events.


----------



## btrudy (26 Apr 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I did.  I quoted your fucking post.  After that, I added my comments that I wanted to.  I used examples to demonstrate "punishing all for the failings of some" is a stupid idea, and also to demonstrate that individuals should be held accountable for their actions...not the rest of us.  I did it to counter your point that I quoted; I thought the point was pretty clear - "punish the guilty, not the masses".  If there are 50,000 "mess events" in the CAF in 2022, and 25 sexual assault / misconduct charges stem from those events and 100 cases of alcohol misuse/conduct, that's not a reason to not have mess events.


You "quoted my fucking post", but it certainly seems like you didn't bother reading it. 

In said post, I mentioned it was important to keep in mind how much of our sexual misconduct has had alcohol as a contributing factor. What I did not do in said post was propose any course of action. Let alone any "wide brush punishment". 

So, once again, quit the strawman arguments and maybe actually react to what people actually say. Don't fucking put words in my mouth.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Apr 2022)

Ok.  Time to take a time out.


----------



## btrudy (5 Jul 2022)

Update; the new dress instructions will take effect in early Sept (date I've seen mentioned was the 6th, but I didn't see that verified from an official channel). 

CDS / CFCPO Comments can be found on a video here. 

A FAQ on the changes can be found here. 

Some highlights to be expected:

The prohibition on hands in pockets is being removed. 
Dress Instructions will be completely gender neutral (and for anyone paying attention, you've already been able to order both "mens" and "women's" pattern clothing from Logistiks since last year).
Hair style will essentially be unlimited, as long as it can be kept neatly groomed. Unnatural colours allowed, no length limit, etc. This includes facial hair, with no limit on styles (e.g. Goatees will now be allowed). Unlike the BEARDFORGEN, this policy applies to everyone, from recruitment to retirement. 
Facial tattoos allowed.
Multiple earrings allowed in non-ceremonial dress, including chains between earrings on the same ear. Only single stud earrings allowed for ceremonial dress. 
They're specifically calling out the stupid toque and gloves thing. Which hasn't even actually been included in the dress instructions themselves, but now it looks like they're going to be stopping local orders to that effect from being made up. 
Sunglasses and transition lenses allowed for all orders of dress, including mirrored lenses. 
Long nails allowed
As per usual, orders can be issued for bone fide operational or safety reasons; e.g. beards on ship still ain't going to happen (having seen the fit test study which was conducted, this is a good thing). Examples given include ordering long nails to be clipped for weapons handling, ordering scarves to cover neon hair, etc. 

Still up in the air: 

No comment on facial piercings, I'm pretty sure those will still be banned.
No comment on body piercings, I'm pretty sure those will be allowed.
No comment on nail polish, I'm pretty sure that'll be allowed
All in all, I'm pretty happy with the way things are shaping out. Although if they could surprise us with authorization of facial piercings, I'd be as happy as a clam.


----------



## Remius (5 Jul 2022)

I could care less. I’ll follow and enforce the direction once it comes into effect.


----------



## Grimey (5 Jul 2022)

The million dollar question:  Will the presumed uptick in recruiting/retention due to loosening/shit-canning grooming standards outweigh those who see the same as the proverbial straw breaking the camels back and think WTF-is-this-I’m-slapping-in.

I’m sure this was focus grouped to death, right?


----------



## kev994 (5 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> The prohibition on hands in pockets is being removed.


I’ve been practicing for this for a long time…


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> Update; the new dress instructions will take effect in early Sept (date I've seen mentioned was the 6th, but I didn't see that verified from an official channel).
> 
> CDS / CFCPO Comments can be found on a video here.
> 
> ...


So, are you happy now, or are there more uniformity issues no need to lift your leg on?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (5 Jul 2022)

Cool. This is all good stuff. I will enforce/follow as it's written. Not going to change my personal appearance just because either.

A lot of folks are going to go off the deependwith this, as they can, but much like WEDFORGEN and BEARDFORGEN, reality will set in at the first field ex/ship deployment.

Dudes that balk at a 15 dollar haircut are in for a shock at how much that Chris Helmsworth flow costs to maintain at a salon. Same with the 200 dollar dye jobs that are needed so it doesn't look like shit. I also imagine that "combat scarf" is going to get pretty fucking annoying in 45 degree heat. 

My folks have already been warned off that piercings come out when working with electricity, just like other jewelry. Safety as always.

This will just become normal, nothing is going to fall apart because of this. 

We are still going to fail at recruitment and retention for many other reasons; new dress regs aren't going to be one of them.


----------



## Remius (5 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> We are still going to fail at recruitment and retention for many other reasons; new dress regs aren't going to be one of them.


This 👆


----------



## TCM621 (5 Jul 2022)

Grimey said:


> The million dollar question:  Will the presumed uptick in recruiting/retention due to loosening/shit-canning grooming standards outweigh those who see the same as the proverbial straw breaking the camels back and think WTF-is-this-I’m-slapping-in.
> 
> I’m sure this was focus grouped to death, right?



From the announcement:


> Many discussions were required, including with the Defence Advisory Groups, Gender Advisors, with current military members_ as well as the next generation of Canadians who will follow us._




They asked a bunch of kids. Kids don't know shit about shit and have no place in the discussion. I know that makes me sound old and God damn it I don't care. Why don't I ask a bunch of 13 year olds about tax policy while I'm at it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> Some highlights to be expected:
> 
> The prohibition on hands in pockets is being removed.



I have an idea how that will go.

Changes to the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions​​


> *The following text has been removed: “Behaviour such as chewing gum, slouching, placing hands in pockets, smoking or eating on the street and walking hand in hand, is forbidden.” Does that mean CAF members can now do all those things when in uniform?*
> 
> 
> Pursuant to QR&O 17.02, the deportment and appearance of all ranks, in uniform or when wearing civilian attire, shall on all occasions reflect credit on the CAF and the individual. It is the responsibility and duty of all CAF members to ensure that, while in uniform, they comport themselves in a manner which projects a positive military appearance. Leaders at all levels have a role to play in this regard.



Chain of Command: Hands in pockets doesn't project a positive military appearance.


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I have an idea how that will go.
> 
> Changes to the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions​​
> _Army_ Chain of Command: Hands in pockets doesn't project a positive military appearance.


FTFY


----------



## mariomike (5 Jul 2022)

TCM621 said:


> They asked a bunch of kids. Kids don't know shit about shit and have no place in the discussion. I know that makes me sound old and God damn it I don't care.



Nice of them to ask.

I wonder if they asked taxpayers - whose support they depend on for salary and benefit improvements - what their opinion is, or if they even GAF?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (5 Jul 2022)

mariomike said:


> Nice of them to ask.
> 
> I wonder if they asked taxpayers - whose support they depend on for salary and benefit improvements - what their opinion is, or if they even GAF?


They consulted the Royal Canadian Legion; which has a comparatively large say in DHH policy for civilian drinking/social club.


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Jul 2022)

I am merely posting this clip because it is somewhat relevant to this topic and is, I feel, one of the best clips in the history of movies about any military. It's just too close to home.

And try not to laugh at about 1.35, I dare you


----------



## FSTO (5 Jul 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> I am merely posting this clip because it is somewhat relevant to this topic and is, I feel, one of the best clips in the history of movies about any military. It's just too close to home.
> 
> And try not to laugh at about 1.35, I dare you


I couldn’t.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Jul 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> And try not to laugh at about 1.35



That was beautiful and made me miss “green DEU days”!😅


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jul 2022)

Late in 2021, the plan was to “phase in” the new dress regs over time.  I’m glad that has been revisited and now it will just happen on Date X.

The proper controls will remain with the appropriate authority for operational and safety reasons.  Eg - 4” gel nails that cost a mbr some of their pay will not be permitted during weapons handling.

I say stop making so much ado about it;  it will be an order that applies to all CAF members, with the enforcement expected to be done by Officers, assisted by Warrant/Petty Officers and NCOs…no change to any of that.  Rip the bandaid off so the changes just become “Ops normal”…

I’m more concerned the techs can turn wrenches 24hrs after burning the happy grass than I am if they have frosted tips and eye liner on.

Facial piercings;  I can’t remember what was briefed on that.  This info has been passed to unit CT level for some time now as it develops and is finalized but the last convo I was in on re: this was a few months ago and the info could be easily be OBE now.


----------



## MilEME09 (6 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I’m more concerned the techs can turn wrenches 24hrs after burning the happy grass than I am if they have frosted tips and eye liner on.


You say that, but what chemicals are I'm that nail polish, or make up? How would it react with industrial chemicals found in a work shop? Look at contact lenses for example, seem safe, till someone accidentally mixes chemicals and melts the sense to their eye (it has happened). I personally for safety wouldn't allow facial makeup of any kind on the shop floor just because of that unknown.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jul 2022)

I don’t think female techs are restricted on make up anymore than a HRA at the Claims cell is, but I could be wrong.

But I think you might have missed my point; saw the peas but missed the steak kind of thing…


----------



## Lumber (6 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> Still up in the air:
> 
> No comment on facial piercings, I'm pretty sure those will still be banned.





Eye In The Sky said:


> Facial piercings;  I can’t remember what was briefed on that.  This info has been passed to unit CT level for some time now as it develops and is finalized but the last convo I was in on re: this was a few months ago and the info could be easily be OBE now.




They actually address facial piercings, or maybe it's just in the Q&A, but there's a line that says no piercings above the shoulders other than on the ears.


----------



## captloadie (6 Jul 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> You say that, but what chemicals are I'm that nail polish, or make up? How would it react with industrial chemicals found in a work shop? Look at contact lenses for example, seem safe, till someone accidentally mixes chemicals and melts the sense to their eye (it has happened). I personally for safety wouldn't allow facial makeup of any kind on the shop floor just because of that unknown.


You do realize that it is 2022, and that men and women have been wearing makeup and working in civilian industrial settings that are much more caustic than anything the CAF does, and I think we would have heard of issues with makeup and reactions. This is the kind of shit that supervisors spout off when they don't want to see change. 
This policy isn't doing away with anything that will make an operational difference. Let's be honest, many individuals who get full face tattoos, extreme hairstyles, face piercings and body mods are generally non-conformists who like to shock and awe. They aren't bad people, but they probably don't have the personality that would let them be happy and productive in a regimented military organization. 
Everyone else just wants to be able to look a little more normal in society, not being automatically single out as military.


----------



## stoker dave (6 Jul 2022)

I suspect a few old boys from the RMC 'old boys club' will be having heart attacks when seeing 'gentlemen cadets' on parade in compliance with the new regulations.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (6 Jul 2022)

There are going to be folks that won't "get it" and those that will go to the extreme just because. Everything exists on a spectrum.

All I have told my junior leaders is to know the standard, model the standard, and enforce the standard. No change from what we've been doing as a profession since the Marian Reforms of Ancient Rome.


----------



## Kilted (6 Jul 2022)

But the real question is: will we be allowed to wear the fleece as an outer garment in a non-feild setting?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (6 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> But the real question is: will we be allowed to wear the fleece as an outer garment in a non-feild setting?


That's a bridge  too far man...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> But the real question is: will we be allowed to wear the fleece as an outer garment in a non-feild setting?


If in the RCAF: yes, for years.

Why does the Army have to make getting dressed so hard?


----------



## Quirky (6 Jul 2022)

I had no issues wearing contacts on the hangar floor for over a decade. Got JP8 in my eye once, flushed my eye and wore glasses for the rest of the day. 

All these safety rules are getting out of hand, let people make their own decisions after we educate them. We are closely treading towards wearing bubble suits everywhere we go. I'm all for natural selection for gross negligence and stupidity, the problem is we don't hold anyone accountable.


----------



## QV (6 Jul 2022)

This thread and this topic are comedy gold.


----------



## Kilted (6 Jul 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> If in the RCAF: yes, for years.
> 
> Why does the Army have to make getting dressed so hard?


It's probably because of the lack of velcro for flag, name tag, brigade, etc. I'm sure that they will remedy that for the fleece in the new pattern. And let's be realistic, there are probably a few people at NDHQ fighting to have an extra spot for ribbons added to the new combats.


----------



## ueo (6 Jul 2022)

mariomike said:


> Nice of them to ask.
> 
> I wonder if they asked taxpayers - whose support they depend on for salary and benefit improvements - what their opinion is, or if they even GAF?


Cdn Taxpayer in the street. "Whats the CAF?"


----------



## Remius (6 Jul 2022)

Again.  Who cares.  This isn’t going to make us any more ineffective than we already are. 

Now that everyone can be who they want, look the way they want can we please start increasing our actual real capabilities.  More ammo, more equipment better training.   

I’ll gladly overlook someone with a pierced tongue and mad max fury road hair if it means I can get a truck full of ammo and the time to use it.


----------



## mariomike (6 Jul 2022)

ueo said:


> Cdn Taxpayer in the street. "Whats the CAF?"



Good question. Unless they walk by you on the sidewalk, I imagine the average taxpayer is unlikely to GAF.


----------



## Quirky (6 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> look the way they want can we please start increasing our actual real capabilities.



But those are the real issues and hard to fix. "Treasury board something something pot of money."

Lets give the people beards, long hair and nails to distract them for a bit.


----------



## FJAG (6 Jul 2022)

Quirky said:


> But those are the real issues and hard to fix. "Treasury board something something pot of money."
> 
> Lets give the people beards, long hair and nails to distract them for a bit.


Is the CAF trying to distract its people; or the politicians?


----------



## MilEME09 (6 Jul 2022)

FJAG said:


> Is the CAF trying to distract its people; or the politicians?


Probably a bit of both, a lot of people are making a mountain out of this, we got bigger fish to fry in order to actually fun the problems the CAF has.


----------



## KevinB (6 Jul 2022)

Lumber said:


> They actually address facial piercings, or maybe it's just in the Q&A, but there's a line that says no piercings above the shoulders other than on the ears.


Well that’s just divisive and not inclusive then…


----------



## Quirky (6 Jul 2022)

FJAG said:


> Is the CAF trying to distract its people; or the politicians?


----------



## kev994 (6 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> It's probably because of the lack of velcro for flag, name tag, brigade, etc.


?? The whole frickin thing is made of velcro


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Jul 2022)

ICCM is going to be pretty busy for a while.


----------



## Navy_Pete (6 Jul 2022)

CAF worker bees: We need more people or an op pause to recover; you are killing us.

CAF leadership: Uh... man buns!







Zero real plans to improve retention, and all our strategic plans actually require us to surge people. We are surging already to do the bare minimum, WTAF?


----------



## Quirky (6 Jul 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> CAF worker bees: We need more people or an op pause to recover; you are killing us.
> 
> CAF leadership: Uh... man buns!
> 
> ...



What we need are town halls and more ideas on what the CAF needs to do!


----------



## Remius (6 Jul 2022)

Quirky said:


> What we need are town halls and more ideas on what the CAF needs to do!


You jest, but that is exactly what we need.  But for actual operational and capability stuff.

I would love a cross country town hall about our actual capability.

I am ok with town halls on culture and even this dress reg thing.  But the fact that we don’t have any for actual capability is telling.

Or course such a thing requires follow through on what actually has to happen to fix things


----------



## Quirky (6 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> You jest, but that is exactly what we need.  But for actual operational and capability stuff.



We all know we need stuff, problem is the government doesn't tell us what our priorities are. "Go do stuff when we tell you" is essentially our Defense Policy.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (6 Jul 2022)

Quirky said:


> We all know we need stuff, problem is the government doesn't tell us what our priorities are. "Go do stuff when we tell you" is essentially our Defense Policy.


And coupled with that is that most of the time the government, especially our current one, will not tell us to go do stuff unless they are pressured and cajoled by the international community to do stuff. 

Its with this attitude that we have no forethought or capability planning. Its a huge reason why the "Just In Time" logistics, procurement, training, etc. cycle we have adopted is failing miserably. We haven't had a PM, MND, or CDS in the past 20 years or so say "this is where we are, this is where we're going, stay the course, and when we get there we will move on to the next bound." 

The same can be seen with the new round of Dress Instructions. While they are needed to foster a more inclusive and diverse CAF, on the outside, it came across looking like a dog seeing a squirrel outside the window: Its not life changing or earth shattering, by my God are we going to make noise because we can.


----------



## FSTO (6 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> You jest, but that is exactly what we need.  But for actual operational and capability stuff.
> 
> I would love a cross country town hall about our actual capability.
> 
> ...


Before we do town halls, we should do a forces wide survey (mandatory) on everyone's (from OD to CDS) opinion on their trust in the equipment and leadership to do the job required by the country. It would be broken down by this

Rank
Environment
Age
No names, service numbers, or gender

Question 1

How confident are you that you could successfully conduct your task in a hostile environment with the current equipment provided? Scale of 1 to 10 where 10 is very confident and 1 is no confidence at all.

Question 2
How confident are you that your leaders (NCO's and Officers) will lead you in a competent manner. Scale of 1 to 10 where 10 is very confident and 1 is no confidence at all.

I have a feeling that the results would cause a little bit of consternation amongst our most senior military and civilian leaders. But with this information the townhalls would become very relevant.


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Jul 2022)

FSTO said:


> Before we do town halls, we should do a forces wide survey (mandatory) on everyone's (from OD to CDS) opinion on their trust in the equipment and leadership to do the job required by the country. It would be broken down by this
> 
> Rank
> Environment
> ...



The first, and most important, rule of conducting surveys is to ensure that there is a leader who intends to, and is able to, act on the results.

Otherwise it acts more like a red rag to a bull


----------



## rmc_wannabe (6 Jul 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> The first, and most important, rule of conducting surveys is to ensure that there is a leader who intends to, and is able to, act on the results.


The problem with our current state of "accountability" in the CAF amounts to a three way fingerpoint between the MND/CDS, PMO, and TBS.

Even if the rank and file of the CAF laid out a 10 point plan with reasonable solutions to fix things, no one would action it because "its not up to me. its a _____ decision."


----------



## Haggis (6 Jul 2022)

FSTO said:


> Before we do town halls, we should do a forces wide survey (mandatory) on everyone's (from OD to CDS) opinion on their trust in the equipment and leadership to do the job required by the country. It would be broken down by this
> 
> Rank
> Environment
> ...


I recall doing a survey on some QoL issue a few years ago.  My responses were not all that positive.  The demographic questions were mandatory.  Being the only Infmn MWO in that particular organization made it pretty hard to be anonymous.


----------



## Harris (6 Jul 2022)

I remember having to have the Unit do an optional anonymous survey once.  A Week before the final due date the Brigade COS told us that there were not enough returns so we would all be provided with a list of pers who had not yet done it.  I raised the issue that it was supposed to be anonymous and that if we had lied to the troops and then did what he suggested, we would never get another troop to ever fill out a survey.  List was not provided.


----------



## PMedMoe (6 Jul 2022)

Try being the only female PMed MCpl on an "anonymous" survey.


----------



## Remius (6 Jul 2022)

PMedMoe said:


> Try being the only female PMed MCpl on an "anonymous" survey.


Challenge accepted.  I suspect I will fail on many levels…


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> It's probably because of the lack of velcro for flag, name tag, brigade, etc. I'm sure that they will remedy that for the fleece in the new pattern. And let's be realistic, there are probably a few people at NDHQ fighting to have an extra spot for ribbons added to the new combats.


Nope.  RCAF fleeces (there are two; one is standard anti-static dissipating, the other for aircrew is FR with FR stitching and FR hook&loop system) have all the required spots for name tapes, flags, patches, slip-ons, etc.  RCAF members, at least in this case, are treated like adults and allowed to wear fleece as an outer garment.

It an ‘Army doing it to itself’ issue….


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Jul 2022)

Townhalls are a waste of time. Troops know if they bring up uncomfortable points or questions they'll get shit blasted. At least the Military Police are honest about it. Seen a townhall email from an MP RSM saying "tell your troops townhalls aren't the platform to ask questions! And stop bringing up beards, the answer is no!"


----------



## Eaglelord17 (6 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Townhalls are a waste of time. Troops know if they bring up uncomfortable points or questions they'll get shit blasted. At least the Military Police are honest about it. Seen a townhall email from an MP RSM saying "tell your troops townhalls aren't the platform to ask questions! And stop bringing up beards, the answer is no!"


My favourite one was a OS who asked when the speaker was using abbreviations if they could use the full name of the abbreviation the first time so they could understand what was being talked about. He then got pulled aside and given a talking to by the Coxn because apparently wanting to understand what is being talked about is a problem.


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Townhalls are a waste of time. Troops know if they bring up uncomfortable points or questions they'll get shit blasted. At least the Military Police are honest about it. Seen a townhall email from an MP RSM saying "tell your troops townhalls aren't the platform to ask questions! And stop bringing up beards, the answer is no!"



I did a 'small hall' with my company once, which was awesome.

People who said they needed help with a bunch of stuff like pay/ claims etc got it dealt with, and I asked the question "What does the ideal weekend exercise look like" and got this answer from a keen young MCpl, which I continue to treasure:

"Sir, when we we hit the ground running on Friday night and pray for death by Sunday morning."


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Jul 2022)

If your uncomfortable with uncomfortable questions, then don't do townhalls, otherwise all the command staff is doing is masturbation.


----------



## kev994 (6 Jul 2022)

Haggis said:


> I recall doing a survey on some QoL issue a few years ago.  My responses were not all that positive.  The demographic questions were mandatory.  Being the only Infmn MWO in that particular organization made it pretty hard to be anonymous.


I had a similar issue stateside… anonymous survey but one question is “what service are you in”… 199 people are in the Coast Guard and 1 person is in the Air Force, it’s pretty easy to figure out what 100% of the Air Force thinks.


----------



## Navy_Pete (6 Jul 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> I did a 'small hall' with my company once, which was awesome.
> 
> People who said they needed help with a bunch of stuff like pay/ claims etc got it dealt with, and I asked the question "What does the ideal weekend exercise look like" and got this answer from a keen young MCpl, which I continue to treasure:
> 
> "Sir, when we we hit the ground running on Friday night and pray for death by Sunday morning."



I think the navy equivalent on the engineering side usually happened in the MCR during quiet hours or in one of the engineering spaces on an alongside party (heavy workshop on the 280s, AAMR on the CPFs).  The party bit has gone out of style, but we also occasionally did sunday morning coffees in the MCR at sea. Was a lot more informal, but could be enlightening.

I think town halls fall apart when you reach a certain critical mass (and similarly think the critical mass for a WG to be useless is 8 people); just gets to a point where most people won't actually speak their mind, and a lot of people who do speak their mind don't actually represent the masses and have their own axes to grind.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jul 2022)

Quirky said:


> But those are the real issues and hard to fix. "Treasury board something something pot of money."
> 
> Lets give the people beards, long hair and nails to distract them for a bit.



Beards, weed and boots have a expiry date on keeping people happy and / or distracted?


----------



## Navy_Pete (6 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Beards, weed and boots have a expiry date on keeping people happy and / or distracted?


Next step, GIFs in emails!

I'm stuck contentedly watching this one now.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jul 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Nope.  RCAF fleeces (there are two; one is standard anti-static dissipating, the other for aircrew is FR with FR stitching and FR hook&loop system) have all the required spots for name tapes, flags, patches, slip-ons, etc.  RCAF members, at least in this case, are treated like adults and allowed to wear fleece as an outer garment.
> 
> It an ‘Army doing it to itself’ issue….



Huh.  Didn’t know there’s 2.  Is the second one on the TH SOI?  Never even heard of it (not that i need another jacket…).


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Huh.  Didn’t know there’s 2.  Is the second one on the TH SOI?  Never even heard of it (not that i need another jacket…).


Yup.


----------



## markppcli (9 Jul 2022)

All I wanted in that FAQ was to see “ ECU pants are to be secure at the ankle as they are designed, not bloused above the boot.” To be followed by instructions that every one wo be in ECU by the end of the year.


----------



## NavyShooter (9 Jul 2022)

So...can I trim my beard into a Goatee yet...?


----------



## Remius (9 Jul 2022)

NavyShooter said:


> So...can I trim my beard into a Goatee yet...?


Sept i believe


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Jul 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I think the navy equivalent on the engineering side usually happened in the MCR during quiet hours or in one of the engineering spaces on an alongside party (heavy workshop on the 280s, AAMR on the CPFs).  The party bit has gone out of style, but we also occasionally did sunday morning coffees in the MCR at sea. Was a lot more informal, but could be enlightening.
> 
> I think town halls fall apart when you reach a certain critical mass (and similarly think the critical mass for a WG to be useless is 8 people); just gets to a point where most people won't actually speak their mind, and a lot of people who do speak their mind don't actually represent the masses and have their own axes to grind.


A townhall that is publicised as been about X issues can be good and focused. You can leave 5-10 minutes for any question to be asked with no promise of an answer and no consequences so you get a barometer of what they are feeling or is there an issue that you have missed.


----------



## Kilted (9 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> All I wanted in that FAQ was to see “ ECU pants are to be secure at the ankle as they are designed, not bloused above the boot.” To be followed by instructions that every one wo be in ECU by the end of the year.


I'm pretty sure that I saw a PowerPoint that said that in about 2012 or 2013.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Jul 2022)

I'm super excited that these new dress regs will postpone the release of 2 or 3 entire people, so we can drive them into the ground with op tempo ...


----------



## markppcli (9 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> I'm pretty sure that I saw a PowerPoint that said that in about 2012 or 2013.


Hahahahha had the same comment to a friend the other day.


----------



## btrudy (9 Jul 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> I'm super excited that these new dress regs will postpone the release of 2 or 3 entire people, so we can drive them into the ground with op tempo ...



If it does help recruitment or retention, that's a great thing, but that's a side benefit. The initiative was done primarily to be more inherently inclusive. You're supposed to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not because it would benefit you.


----------



## Kilted (9 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> Hahahahha had the same comment to a friend the other day.


I only got my first and so far only set of the new uniform in 2018, I still wear the old uniform sometimes because I haven't been able to exchange them.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Jul 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> I'm super excited that these new dress regs will postpone the release of 2 or 3 entire people, so we can drive them into the ground with op tempo ...


----------



## lenaitch (9 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> If it does help recruitment or retention, that's a great thing, but that's a side benefit. The initiative was done primarily to be more inherently *inclusive*. You're supposed to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not because it would benefit you.


I get the need to remove items or practices that may be a roadblock to genders or cultures, but I don't see how most of  the itemized changes have anything to do with 'inclusion'.  Attempts to be more attractive or contemporary to the recruit-level demographic - sure; but is there marginalized group out there that is being excluded because they walk with their hands in their pockets, have facial tattoos or lime green hair?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (9 Jul 2022)

lenaitch said:


> I get the need to remove items or practices that may be a roadblock to genders or cultures, but I don't see how most of  the itemized changes have anything to do with 'inclusion'.  Attempts to be more attractive or contemporary to the recruit-level demographic - sure; but is there marginalized group out there that is being excluded because they walk with their hands in their pockets, have facial tattoos or lime green hair?


I think its both. 

We saw the whole thing start with ponytailforgen and beardforgen. Rules for some, not for others. Canadian society is borderline Communist when it comes to egalitarianism (well....perceived egalitarianism). 

Any change in the Dress Regs solely in order to accommodate Trans or Non-binary folks would have been met with the "well what about me?" Card being played by every Cpl/Pte in the CAF. 

This policy, while it does let pretty much everyone off the chain to do whatever they want, is easier to enforce because the need for accommodation will be limited. No more religious exemptions, beard chits, having to disclose your gender preference to your CoC, etc.

Do I think it's a Bridge Too Far? Possibly. But ultimately, it won't affect my appearance in the slightest; for those it will have a net positive benefit for? I'm super happy for them. As for the ass hats looking to "stick it to the dinosaurs," I hope they know what they're getting into and will watch for 2, 3 months afterward how many of them are still willing to put up with the hassle in exchange for the shock value.


----------



## btrudy (10 Jul 2022)

lenaitch said:


> I get the need to remove items or practices that may be a roadblock to genders or cultures, but I don't see how most of  the itemized changes have anything to do with 'inclusion'.  Attempts to be more attractive or contemporary to the recruit-level demographic - sure; but is there marginalized group out there that is being excluded because they walk with their hands in their pockets, have facial tattoos or lime green hair?



I mean, literally anyone who would prefer to have their appearance in a manner that is currently banned but will now be allowed will now feel more welcome as part of the institution. You don't need to be targeting certain specific demographic groups. Making _everyone_ feel welcome is good. You don't need to micromanage the dress instructions to try and target stuff associated with marginalized groups; just make it sufficiently open that everyone can do what they want, whether that desire be based upon traditional cultural practices, new cultural practices, religious obligations, or personal preference, and then everyone feels more at home in the institution.

While we have a bit more of an obligation to make accomodations for religious practices and the like, there's really no particular reason not to also open it up to just personal preferences. Lime green hair doesn't negatively affect our operational capability any more than pony tails did, any more than hands in pockets will, any more than facial tattoos will or DEU skirts on men, etc. Infringing on people's Charter rights to freedom of expression by banning lime green hair (or any of the other of myriad of changes that are being implemented) is IMHO only justifiable when there's a really damned good reason; the notion that you can be ordered to wear a scarf to cover it is reasonable.

But while we're at it to also address your specific question, yes there are marginalized groups that would be excluded due to facial tattoos; Inuit, Maori, etc.


----------



## TacticalTea (10 Jul 2022)

@rmc_wannabe is right on.

The whole, entire point of this is avoiding liability. CAF is actually pretty strong on the rule of law. Even looking at Op Honour type stuff, one might think it's female-biased, but actually it'd be worst in corporate, I tell ya what.

This organization has actually been pretty good during my time in at demonstrating that it wants to uphold the same standards no matter what ''group'' you belong to.

In reality, this ''new'' policy is already in effect. Go take a walk on a naval base and you'll see all the stuff that's listed on there already. This reality is a sort of frankenstein monster made up of a thousand exemptions. This opens up the CAF to adverse administrative or legal action on the basis that the majority is now the minority, and it has become unfair to apply the rules so unevenly.

Thus... HAIRFORGEN. Level the playing field. Everybody now plays by the same rules.

Are we going to look like a goofy band of misfits? Oh ya. Is this going to do anything for recruitment, retention, morale, and unity? Hell nah. But at least the CAF avoids liability.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Jul 2022)




----------



## btrudy (10 Jul 2022)

I'm quite pleased that this meme, unlike my actual RSM, actually knows the proper pluralization of Sergeant-Major.


----------



## Ostrozac (10 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> The initiative was done primarily to be more inherently inclusive.


Is that true, though? It was my understanding that the new dress initiatives were driven by legal advice that the current standard wouldn’t survive a supreme court challenge.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Jul 2022)

The good news is that this mostly caters to attention-seeking behaviours.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> The good news is that this mostly caters to attention-seeking behaviours.


Yup.

This is going to bring us in a lot of choice candidates whose reasons for joining are solid and institution driven.

This will lessen our retention issues too. The desire to be a member of the military balancing on long hair and nails and men wearing dresses is important.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (10 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> If it does help recruitment or retention, that's a great thing, but that's a side benefit. The initiative was done primarily to be more inherently inclusive. You're supposed to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not because it would benefit you.


I doubt it will help. I know personally it just adds to the CAF being a joke and for me it makes me want to be in less rather than more.

Society has a expectation for what the military is. Their view is much closer to something along the lines of full metal jacket, than the pot smoking, lime green long haired, long fingernailed hippie. That view matters whether or not people choose to acknowledge that. Part of the reason I think many become disenchanted with the CAF is because we are eroding our military ethos. 

I have seen what happens when we don't properly enforce discipline, this everyone has a say mentality is one that will get people killed. Simple example being we had a fire on ship. The PO in charge of the firebase was managing it and a LS didn't like what was being ordered and started arguing with them trying to take control from the PO (more like the LS screaming in the face of the PO and the PO having to scream back). This lost valuable time due to both of them yelling back and forth at each other. Fortunately the fire was relatively small and was controlled quickly, but could have resulted in worse happening. Nothing ever came out of that when the LS should have been charged. 

War has proven that short hair which is natural colours and clean shaven, with short fingernails is the best standard from a occupational health and safety standpoint. We can choose to ignore it but the fact we need to adjust the standards constantly (cut your nails if you go in the field, put on a scarf if your hair is bright, shave off your beard if your doing the gas hut, etc.) instead of just maintaining the best practice is stupid. If it isn’t what you would do in a operational context why aren’t we training as we would fight?

I don't think the previous standard would have survived a charter challenge because it was a variety of different standards depending on who you are based of race, sex, or religion. All that meant was they just had to make a singular standard for all. Didn't have to have lime green hair as part of it, or abandon any pretense of having a dress standard. 

Does this mean we can all do a class action on the military for any previously serving member being oppressed under the previous dress regulations?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Jul 2022)

All you'll get is an apology from trudeau.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Jul 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> I know personally it just adds to the CAF being a joke and for me it makes me want to be in less rather than more.


How does this make the CAF a joke?


Eaglelord17 said:


> Society has a expectation for what the military is. Their view is much closer to something along the lines of full metal jacket, than the pot smoking, lime green long haired, long fingernailed hippie. That view matters whether or not people choose to acknowledge that. Part of the reason I think many become disenchanted with the CAF is because we are eroding our military ethos.


Values form military ethos.  I hope appearance isn’t part of the values you prioritize over other, more important ones like courage and integrity.  The word “appearance” isn’t part of duty with honour.

There is an expectation, described within Duty with Honour,  that the CAF is a reflection of Canadian society.  This will  crack the door more open to the whole Canadian society who, despite having a non-conventional appearance, may live by the same values the CAF promotes.



Eaglelord17 said:


> I have seen what happens when we don't properly enforce discipline, this everyone has a say mentality is one that will get people killed. Simple example being we had a fire on ship. The PO in charge of the firebase was managing it and a LS didn't like what was being ordered and started arguing with them trying to take control from the PO (more like the LS screaming in the face of the PO and the PO having to scream back). This lost valuable time due to both of them yelling back and forth at each other. Fortunately the fire was relatively small and was controlled quickly, but could have resulted in worse happening. Nothing ever came out of that when the LS should have been charged.


We can still enforce discipline. The standard is just different.  It will force people, that traditionally focused their discipline enforcement on dress, to shift to more meaningful areas of discipline related to core military competencies and values.  The “easy” button won’t be there anymore.


Eaglelord17 said:


> War has proven that short hair which is natural colours and clean shaven, with short fingernails is the best standard from a occupational health and safety standpoint. We can choose to ignore it but the fact we need to adjust the standards constantly (cut your nails if you go in the field, put on a scarf if your hair is bright, shave off your beard if your doing the gas hut, etc.) instead of just maintaining the best practice is stupid. If it isn’t what you would do in a operational context why aren’t we training as we would fight?


I am assuming you are against women in the field as well, who typically have long hair? I am unsure how having natural colour hair has anything to do with occupational health and safety of an aircraft maintainer deployed on operation or a sailor on a ship. 

As I have said in many circles, this will be a non-event (like the PONYTAILFORGEN, BEARDFORGEN, and WEEDFORGEN).  I doubt, in the long run, that a significant number of people will start sporting bright blue hair.  The biggest impact we’ll see is a couple of guys (I use guys because short hair was targeted at guys in the old policy) will have slightly longer hair because they don’t go to the barber shop as often.  Big deal…

I challenge you to wargame this policy and come up with scenarios (realistic scenarios - not far fetched ones) where this policy would actually be an issue.


----------



## Haggis (10 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> The desire to be a member of the military balancing on long hair and nails and *men wearing dresses is important.*


They're called Highlanders and it's a kilt!


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jul 2022)

Haggis said:


> They're called Highlanders and it's a kilt!


In 2022 it's called cultural appropriation


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> In 2022 it's called cultural appropriation


That’s so 2018…


----------



## ArmyRick (10 Jul 2022)

Accommodating people who "must" wear bright coloured hair, long fingernails or dresses in DEU does NOT have the focus to be in the CAF. And this is where I think the CAF has failed on this recent policy change.

You join the CAF because you want to serve your country.
You join the CAF because you want to crew a tank, fly a jet or sail on a warship.
You join the CAF because you see it as an honourable profession that pays and has benefits.
You join the CAF because you want to see more of your country and the world.
You join the CAF to protect Canadians, the weak and vulnerable here and abroad. 

If you want to join the CAF, get your head straight. Uniforms and uniformity has a point BEYOND operational necessity. Take DEUs for example, their is ZERO operational use to them. However we wear that uniform as part of a TRADITION and RECOGNITION to the queen, the government and people of Canada. Its high time we boot this liberal government out and tell our CAF hierarchy to get their priorities straight. 

I have no issue adjusting some minor uniformity for religious and/or cultural ways I am ok with. However adjusting dress regulations for whiny "I want a ponytail and bright green hair" type mentality is weak and lacks integrity. 

Where does it stop? When will the CAF put its foot down and say our traditions, culture and operations come first?

The Canadians who seriously want to serve the CAF need to grow the F up and make sacrifices. You may be asked to sacrifice your own life someday. If you can't give up some minor issue like hair colour, I doubt you have the fortitude to give up your life. Too much of a "me, me, me" mind set. Frankly this whole country has far too many younger generation who grew up in the safety and sheltered life that Canada provides. 

Serving in the CAF is about country and service before self. Mission before self. Your soldiers before self. End story. 

In my 2 years managing troublesome PAT/PARS at Meaford, I got a first hand look at people who were not mentally suitable for service in the CAF. Believe me, I got a long list of horror stories of the wrong stuff. Challenge me on this if you want. And yes I turned around the attitudes of a few.  

All these changes will drive more high quality service members out and further discourage ideal candidates from joining.

And for those telling off the dinosaurs, do so at your own peril. Know why I never insulted my superiors when I joined? I wasn't in the Medak pocket or Cypres in '76.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (10 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> How does this make the CAF a joke?
> I am assuming you are against women in the field as well, who typically have long hair? I am unsure how having natural colour hair has anything to do with occupational health and safety of an aircraft maintainer deployed on operation or a sailor on a ship.
> 
> As I have said in many circles, this will be a non-event (like the PONYTAILFORGEN, BEARDFORGEN, and WEEDFORGEN).  I doubt, in the long run, that a significant number of people will start sporting bright blue hair.  The biggest impact we’ll see is a couple of guys (I use guys because short hair was targeted at guys in the old policy) will have slightly longer hair because they don’t go to the barber shop as often.  Big deal…
> ...


This is just a addition as to why it is becoming a joke. There isn’t much that instills me with pride in this organization. We are unable to do our job (protect Canada) without significant assistance of foreign forces (mainly the US). We are poorly equipped with aging equipment which has no intentions of being replaced. We have a ton of out of shape troops whose uniforms I have to wonder if ‘Woods’ (the tent company) made them. We constantly are lowering our standards instead of trying to bring the standards up. We have toxic work environments where people are afraid to speak their mind or make a joke for fear of it being taken wrong. Can you explain to me how our military isn’t much of a joke?

Yes I am against anyone having long hair in the field, even women, it works fine for the low intensity conflicts we have fought for the last while, but for a higher intensity one we should default to the easiest to maintain length (i.e. short). I have had long hair and short hair and can tell you that the amount of effort needed to maintain long hair is wasted effort when it could be spent on other things in war. 

As to hair colour, it can make you more visible on top of the maintenance issues. It can have security issues, as are we going to reissue IDs every time someone changes hair colour? Or if it significantly fades? Plus even in your sailor or aircraft maintainer they are all CAF members and can be posted anywhere or do anything the CAF requires of them. They may at some point be called upon to be armed and have to fight someone. Lets pause getting shot at for a second, need to put my scarf on.

Another factor is how relations are viewed by both our public and foreign dignatories, militaries, and their public in case of us fighting on another nations soil. Having a professional appearance matters, as much as some of us like to pretend it doesn’t. 

Your probably right about most people not taking advantage of it, its more the fact some can and will push it right to its limits like some people always will.


----------



## mariomike (10 Jul 2022)

QV said:


> This thread and this topic are comedy gold.



Especially after 30 pages.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> I challenge you to wargame this policy and come up with scenarios (realistic scenarios - not far fetched ones) where this policy would actually be an issue.



Instagram generation joins the CAF and quickly realizes that while they can look however they want, they can't behave however they want. Culture shock leads to "I have mental health issues" trips to the CDU with restrictive MELs. Other people pick up the slack and continue to get burned out. Best case people who shouldn't have joined VR. Worst case they mark time over 5-6 years going through the medical system for medical releases. Can't get more people into units to alleviate the manning issues because of injured people tied to PY positions. 

We should have put effort into fixing RMC first.


----------



## Furniture (10 Jul 2022)

ArmyRick said:


> All these changes will drive more high quality service members out and further discourage ideal candidates from joining.
> 
> And for those telling off the dinosaurs, do so at your own peril. Know why I never insulted my superiors when I joined? I wasn't in the Medak pocket or Cypres in '76.


How exactly will this drive out "high quality" members? If you're actually a high quality member why would someone else's blue hair, or ponytail bother you? 

As for disrespecting, remember that the people pushing this stuff from the top are the ones that went through years of war in Afghanistan, maybe they actually do understand the real operational impact of morale, and the lack of impact from non-safety related dress...


----------



## btrudy (10 Jul 2022)

ArmyRick said:


> Accommodating people who "must" wear bright coloured hair, long fingernails or dresses in DEU does NOT have the focus to be in the CAF. And this is where I think the CAF has failed on this recent policy change.


Welcoming people who want to wear their hair brightly coloured (along with the other changes) will simply mean that the range of people who will not feel excluded or alienated due to the personal appearance regulations is broadened. Inherent inclusivity is a good thing; you know, part of that whole "Respect the Dignity of All Peoples" thing which is literally the most important part of the CAF ethos should include respecting the choices that people want to make with regards to their own personal appearance.



ArmyRick said:


> You join the CAF because you want to serve your country.
> You join the CAF because you want to crew a tank, fly a jet or sail on a warship.
> You join the CAF because you see it as an honourable profession that pays and has benefits.
> You join the CAF because you want to see more of your country and the world.
> You join the CAF to protect Canadians, the weak and vulnerable here and abroad.



Frankly, it's disappointing that we need to repeat this point since a lot of people here don't seem to get it, but there's literally nothing about wanting to have bright purple hair that has any effect on any of these things.



ArmyRick said:


> If you want to join the CAF, get your head straight. Uniforms and uniformity has a point BEYOND operational necessity. Take DEUs for example, their is ZERO operational use to them. However we wear that uniform as part of a TRADITION and RECOGNITION to the queen, the government and people of Canada. Its high time we boot this liberal government out and tell our CAF hierarchy to get their priorities straight.



First off, this isn't a "liberal government" change. It's a bottom-up initiative which was prompted by a briefing note drafted up by the Defence Women's Advisory Organization.

2ndly, yeah, no duh we wear the uniform for those reasons. _*Which is why we're not getting rid of the uniform*_.



ArmyRick said:


> I have no issue adjusting some minor uniformity for religious and/or cultural ways I am ok with. However adjusting dress regulations for whiny "I want a ponytail and bright green hair" type mentality is weak and lacks integrity.



I fail to see how there this can be construed as "weak". As for integrity, my view is the opposite. Making these changes is simply the right thing to do from a moral standpoint. Removing regulations that infringed upon people's Charter right to freedom of expression is a good thing.



ArmyRick said:


> Where does it stop? When will the CAF put its foot down and say our traditions, culture and operations come first?



Well, for operations, completely. Nothing in these orders impact the ability to ensure that personal appearance choices don't impact operational capability.

And for traditions and culture: we'll put out foot down and say they're important when it's recognized that they're bringing more benefit than harm. I mean, my dude, we created an entirely new L1 organization headed by a full-ass Lieutenant-General devoted to culture change. You know why that's the case? Because we've recognized that many aspects of our military culture are broken and toxic and need to be fixed.



ArmyRick said:


> The Canadians who seriously want to serve the CAF need to grow the F up and make sacrifices. You may be asked to sacrifice your own life someday. If you can't give up some minor issue like hair colour, I doubt you have the fortitude to give up your life. Too much of a "me, me, me" mind set. Frankly this whole country has far too many younger generation who grew up in the safety and sheltered life that Canada provides.



The people who serve the CAF should be expected to make sacrifices, _*when there's a good reason for those sacrifices*_. Adhering to some white cis straight Christian male 1950s aesthetic ideal is not a good reason to expect someone to sacrifice. It's not that they can't give up some minor issue like hair colour, it's that there's no damned good reason to ask them to do it in the first place.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jul 2022)

Furniture said:


> are the ones that went through years of war in Afghanistan, maybe they actually do understand the real operational impact of morale, and the lack of impact from non-safety related dress...



Maybe. But appeals to authority can be tricky sometimes.


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Jul 2022)

I couldn't care less what the color of one's hair is, the length of the fingernails or hair is, or if they chose to wear a skirt or pants on parade. 

Just show up and give me 110% effort.  That's all I ask. 

As for me, my hair was already driving my fellow C2s and the C1s nuts.  Specifically, our gendered hair regulations became moot and outdated once we crawled out of the cave and realized women can do any job a man can, with long hair. 

I like the changes.  Brings it on.


----------



## btrudy (10 Jul 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> As to hair colour, it can make you more visible on top of the maintenance issues. It can have security issues, as are we going to reissue IDs every time someone changes hair colour? Or if it significantly fades?



Given that we don't reissue IDs for literally any other hair changes, including someone deciding to literally get rid of their hair completely, I really don't see how this is a concern. 



Eaglelord17 said:


> Plus even in your sailor or aircraft maintainer they are all CAF members and can be posted anywhere or do anything the CAF requires of them. They may at some point be called upon to be armed and have to fight someone. Lets pause getting shot at for a second, need to put my scarf on.



If they're posted to an operational theatre where there's a threat, they'll put the scarf on (I'm sure most will simply decide to dye a subdued colour instead). If you're talking about something happening where you go from zero to armed, well putting the scarf on takes a hell of a lot less effort than issuing everyone firearms. Friendo can take the 45 seconds to throw their hair scarf on while in line waiting for ammo.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> some white cis straight



Did you know 99.7% of Canadians are CIS?


----------



## desindarfur (10 Jul 2022)

I'm not against change, I just prefer, improvement.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (10 Jul 2022)

I'd like to point out that in the RN/RCN it wasn't even a hundred years ago that seamen wore their hair long and in a ponytail. The ponytails disappeared shortly before WWII, but hair could be worn long (touching the shoulders) until unification, when Army hair styles took over.

And in the RCAF, if you didn't have long hair flowing in the wind while flying your Sopwith Camel, then you had a nice long white silk scarf doing it.


----------



## btrudy (10 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Did you know 99.7% of Canadians are CIS?



If you're suggesting that the fact that trans people are relatively rare means that it's acceptable to design a set of dress instructions which is inherently discriminatory against them, then I would really prefer if you and your bigotry would kindly remove itself from the CAF and this conversation.

If you're not suggesting that... then I'm not sure what the hell your point is?


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Jul 2022)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> I'd like to point out that in the RN/RCN it wasn't even a hundred years ago that seamen wore their hair long and in a ponytail. The ponytails disappeared shortly before WWII, but hair could be worn long (touching the shoulders) until unification, when Army hair styles took over.
> 
> And in the RCAF, if you didn't have long hair flowing in the wind while flying your Sopwith Camel, then you had a nice long white silk scarf doing it.



Ahhh yes, unification.  When the Army threw up all over everything.


----------



## TacticalTea (10 Jul 2022)

Not too many long-haired men, to be honest...   

At any rate, this new policy doesn't resolve the number one issue that ruins my hair: having to wear a god damn hat everywhere! Who even wears hats anymore in Canadian society!?


----------



## Furniture (10 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Maybe. But appeals to authority can be tricky sometimes.
> 
> View attachment 71928


I was kind of driving at the futility/silliness of his mention of Cyprus, and Medak... The CAF has, and will continue to have people who have done dangerous things in the face of an enemy. The Cyprus and Medak generations got things done, the Afghanistan generation got/get things done.


----------



## btrudy (10 Jul 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Not too many long-haired men, to be honest...
> 
> At any rate, this new policy doesn't resolve the number one issue that ruins my hair: having to wear a god damn hat everywhere! Who even wears hats anymore in Canadian society!?



Now this is the type of no-nonsense policy change I can really get behind. 

Plus it'll fix the issue of plenty of people having terrible hat-hair as they start growing out their do's.


----------



## mariomike (10 Jul 2022)

TacticalTea said:


>


There's a guy playing with the captain's ( ? ) ear.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> If you're suggesting that the fact that trans people are relatively rare means that it's acceptable to design a set of dress instructions which is inherently discriminatory against them, then I would really prefer if you and your bigotry would kindly remove itself from the CAF and this conversation.
> 
> If you're not suggesting that... then I'm not sure what the hell your point is?



But you haven't even demanded to see my manager yet btrudy. 

I think it was absolutely acceptable at the time. Now I think it makes sense to take a neutral approach, even if it's for a miniscule percentage of service members. Some women are built differently and just prefer it too. If a woman or transman wants to wear a male DEU tunic then do it. 

What I also think thought, is people like you are bigots towards "white cis heterosexual males" as a demographic. In our drive for inclusion “CIS" can and does get used in a negative way.


----------



## Remius (10 Jul 2022)

mariomike said:


> There's a guy playing with the captain's ( ? ) ear.


Covering his piercing so no one melts down about how ineffective it might make him.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> If you're suggesting that the fact that trans people are relatively rare means that it's acceptable to design a set of dress instructions which is inherently discriminatory against them, then I would really prefer if you and your bigotry would kindly remove itself from the CAF and this conversation.
> 
> If you're not suggesting that... then I'm not sure what the hell your point is?


The only people discriminated against by uniform design were women, the 1980's skirts and bowler hats were quite bad. I also be blunt and say that the majority of trans people I have met are not worth the logistical and mental health costs to actively recruit.


----------



## ArmyRick (10 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> Welcoming people who want to wear their hair brightly coloured (along with the other changes) will simply mean that the range of people who will not feel excluded or alienated due to the personal appearance regulations is broadened. Inherent inclusivity is a good thing; you know, part of that whole "Respect the Dignity of All Peoples" thing which is literally the most important part of the CAF ethos should include respecting the choices that people want to make with regards to their own personal appearance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope. Big Nope.

Why does someone have to wear purple hair and have nose rings or wear long finger nails? 


When I joined in 1990, lots of people wore long hair (heavy metal music was still popular), people cut their damn hair if they wanted to join the CAF. SImple concept. 


Show me WHY someone has to have their pretty hair colour or some other silly nonsense. Go for it. You, @btrudy , sell it to me.

Did you get the part about the "me, me, me" mentality? Nope you blew right over it. Thats the ultimate failure in your reasoning and I assume your an officer? Us former NCO and WO types pay attention to our soldiers mind sets. What is their ultimate aim, etc. 

What the hell makes YOU think that someone who wants uniform standards that have nothing to do with 1950s christian standards and for F sakes, knock it off with "cis" male terminology. Its a BS made up word.


----------



## btrudy (10 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> But you haven't even demanded to see my manager yet btrudy.
> 
> I think it was absolutely acceptable at the time. Now I think it makes sense to take a neutral approach, even if it's for a miniscule percentage of service members. Some women are built differently and just prefer it too. If a woman or transman wants to wear a male DEU tunic then do it.
> 
> What I also think thought, is people like you are bigots towards "white cis heterosexual males" as a demographic. In our drive for inclusion “CIS" can and does get used in a negative way.


I'm not bigoted against white cishet men; I am one myself after all.

What I dislike is the notion that everyone should be expected to be continually expected to cater to what that group deems as acceptable or ideal. It's not the being cis that's the problem; it's the only considering cis viewpoints when drafting policy that's the problem. Also of course applied to various other aspects.



Colin Parkinson said:


> I also be blunt and say that the majority of trans people I have met are not worth the logistical and mental health costs to actively recruit.


I'll also be blunt: I think this viewpoint is a clear indication that you're just a terrible person.


----------



## Quirky (10 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> I also be blunt and say that the majority of trans people I have met are not worth the logistical and mental health costs to actively recruit.



Given the low fraction of them in the population already, I find it really hard to believe trans people are flocking to the recruiting centers.

This will end up being a non issue. A dozen or so (CAF wide) people will likely color their hair some bright color to get a rise out of "dinosaurs", but will go back to their natural hair color after people at the mall start looking at them funny. Expressing your individuality has it's consequences, more so out in public than inside the pillow walls of the CAF.



btrudy said:


> What I dislike is the notion that everyone should be expected to be continually expected to cater to what that group deems as acceptable or ideal.



That group you speak of is society. The people who are pushing all these new regs for "inclusivity" are the noisy minority.


----------



## Remius (10 Jul 2022)

None of this is going to make things worse.  Nor is it going to make things better and address our current operational issues. 

The end.


----------



## btrudy (10 Jul 2022)

ArmyRick said:


> Nope. Big Nope.
> 
> Why does someone have to wear purple hair and have nose rings or wear long finger nails?



Because they can and they want to. What business is it of yours when it doesn't affect operational perfomance?




ArmyRick said:


> When I joined in 1990, lots of people wore long hair (heavy metal music was still popular), people cut their damn hair if they wanted to join the CAF. SImple concept.



Sure; and that was unreasonable at the time, and would continue to be unreasonable now. Because long hair doesn't make someone worse at the job. Especially if the "long hair" would only be considered too long if it's attached to a man instead of a woman.



ArmyRick said:


> Show me WHY someone has to have their pretty hair colour or some other silly nonsense. Go for it. You, @btrudy , sell it to me.



Because they want to, and it's none of our damned business otherwise if it doesn't affect operational performance.



ArmyRick said:


> Did you get the part about the "me, me, me" mentality? Nope you blew right over it. Thats the ultimate failure in your reasoning and I assume your an officer? Us former NCO and WO types pay attention to our soldiers mind sets. What is their ultimate aim, etc.



If the ultimate aim is to serve Canada in Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces, then all other choices they make with regards to personal appearance are irrelevant, to the extent that they don't negative impact operational capability, which of course these dress instruction updates still take care of.



ArmyRick said:


> What the hell makes YOU think that someone who wants uniform standards that have nothing to do with 1950s christian standards and for F sakes, knock it off with "cis" male terminology. Its a BS made up word.



... the dress standards were drafted back then, to suit contemporary (at the time) aesthetic ideals of what a "proper" Eurocentric Christian male-focused ideal was. Looking like that is no better or worse than any of the myriad of other possible choices; it's a cultural construct, and thus should not ever be viewed as if it's part of some even remotely objective criteria.

But the fact that the institution latched onto those aesthetics, and forbade any others, has continually made it a worse place for anyone who isn't naturally inclined to follow said aesthetics. It inherently creates one group, for which the standard was designed, which is an "in-group", and excludes all others who might want anything else, whether that desire stems from reasons of personal preference, cultural practices (recent or traditional) or religious obligation.




Quirky said:


> That group you speak of is society. The people who are pushing all these new regs for "inclusivity" are the noisy minority.



I think you seem to be failing to grasp the point that these changes are being implemented, to quote the CFCWO, "to better reflect the changing tastes of the Canadian society we serve".

Society has moved on from the notion that everyone needs to look like a proper English gentleman. So should we.


----------



## Remius (10 Jul 2022)

So I actually talk to the troops in my unit.  The common thing I hear is they want deployments, they want courses, they want good training and kit that works and kit that is relevant.  Also unanimously from the female side is wanting something down about culture issues, not specifically in the unit but CAF wide. 

No one has asked for pink hair or face tattoos.  Not that some wouldn’t take advantage of the new rules but it does t seem to be their most pressing concern.  Some welcomed beards, some welcomed legalized pot.  Some will welcome pink hair and some will welcome whatever else. 

I can guarantee that after the new dres regs are in force that they will all still be asking for deployments, courses and good training and kit that works and kit that is relevant.  And we will still be bleeding people.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> I'll also be blunt: I think this viewpoint is a clear indication that you're just a terrible person.


You are welcome to your opinion of me, but the job of the CF is to go out kill people and break their things and 99% of that crowd, will not further that objective. If I was running a coffee shop or a gardening supply place, I would not care about their gender choices. But with a job like the Forces, they are not worth the effort. My daughter wanted to go RMC and Officer, except now she is a diabetic and will not qualify. Yes she be a great officer and a benefit as long as she does not have to deploy. If she did she be a drag on any unit as she needs Insulin every day. The harsh reality is that she is not viable for the job any longer. The same applies to emotionally needy and unstable people.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (10 Jul 2022)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> I'd like to point out that in the RN/RCN it wasn't even a hundred years ago that seamen wore their hair long and in a ponytail. The ponytails disappeared shortly before WWII, but hair could be worn long (touching the shoulders) until unification, when Army hair styles took over.
> 
> And in the RCAF, if you didn't have long hair flowing in the wind while flying your Sopwith Camel, then you had a nice long white silk scarf doing it.


Most of the lads that took on the Fenians and the Metis looked like this:



They would have balked at what most of us would say a soldier is supposed to look like. I'm certain they would say it's bizarre to see a woman in the ranks, and would marvel at something as simple as a washing machine.

Traditions are good, until they get in the way of progress. Adapting traditions to meet contemporary values is the only way they survive. It's the same reason I have never had to piss in a wine bottle at a Mess Dinner. "This is stupid... let's not keep doing this..."


----------



## Remius (10 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Most of the lads that took on the Fenians and the Metis looked like this:
> 
> View attachment 71930
> 
> ...


Creepy guy in the tent staring into your soul…

Also those look like the Arctic tents we still have.  Might actually be them lol


----------



## FSTO (10 Jul 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Who even wears hats anymore in Canadian society!?


Umm, all those folks who wear baseball hats, backwards I might add. 😑


----------



## Thunderbug (10 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> I challenge you to wargame this policy and come up with scenarios (realistic scenarios - not far fetched ones) where this policy would actually be an issue.



A member at a unit located in a metropolitan city with a strong LGBT culture gets an LGBT pride symbol tattooed on their face, as an outward expression of their identity. Their CoC at the time is supportive as it does not contravene the regulations on tattoos being affiliated with hate groups, etc, and there is no impact to the performance of their duties.

Three years later the member is posted to another city and unit, which will be deploying shortly on an operation in a country where homosexuality is illegal and there is a strong anti-LGBT sentiment based on religious and cultural norms. While a SOFA exists preventing the member from being prosecuted under the country's dubious legal system, there are concerns that the member may become the target of a capable adversary who would exploit their image to undermine the mission and sow distrust among the strongly conservative host nation forces.

Covering the member's face for six months is neither practical nor dignified. Based on the climate in the operating environment, there is no reasonable way to conceal the tattoo.

Not deploying the member, or forcing them to cover the tattoo while on deployment, could be seen as homophobic and could result in negative media attention being drawn to the mission. The issue in question isn't the member's identity or orientation, but rather how a permanent political and cultural symbol which is acceptable in Canada could result in operational tensions with host nation forces in theatre.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> I'm not bigoted against white cishet men; I am one myself after all.



I call this the "I'm not racist, my wife is black" defense.



btrudy said:


> It's not the being cis that's the problem; it's the only considering cis viewpoints when drafting policy that's the problem.


Look at this logically. Right now the government that 33% of Canadians voted for (our of the Canadians that actually voted), is drafting policy and calling the shots. They even lost the popular vote.

99.7% isn't a small ratio of the population to base policy and decisions from. That's almost our whole population.



btrudy said:


> I'll also be blunt: I think this viewpoint is a clear indication that you're just a terrible person.


I actually don't agree with Colin here but he does make valid points. 

Part of the problem is that a certain side of the argument (bigger picture wise) reacts on pure emotion and can't look at things objectively. When they don't agree with someone that other person is automatically a bigot, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, a bad person. Colin isn't a terrible person at all, he's great. He just has a different opinion.


----------



## Remius (10 Jul 2022)

Thunderbug said:


> A member at a unit located in a metropolitan city with a strong LGBT culture gets an LGBT pride symbol tattooed on their face, as an outward expression of their identity. Their CoC at the time is supportive as it does not contravene the regulations on tattoos being affiliated with hate groups, etc, and there is no impact to the performance of their duties.
> 
> Three years later the member is posted to another city and unit, which will be deploying shortly on an operation in a country where homosexuality is illegal and there is a strong anti-LGBT sentiment based on religious and cultural norms. While a SOFA exists preventing the member from being prosecuted under the country's dubious legal system, there are concerns that the member may become the target of a capable adversary who would exploit their image to undermine the mission and sow distrust among the strongly conservative host nation forces.
> 
> ...


We face that with any posting to what we would call progressively challenged countries.  Ukrainian Canadians that might have to interact with Russians a Black soldier deployed to an area where black people are seen as inferior or women.  Women to the Middle East.  Or any other thing you can think of,

Having a diverse force also means we can do a lot of things others can’t.


----------



## btrudy (10 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Colin isn't a terrible person at all, he's great. He just has a different opinion.



I'm sorry, but whether or not certain people inherently deserve basic human rights and to be treated with the same respect and afforded the same opportunities as others is not "do they like pineapple on pizza". It's not a simple difference of opinion. 

Bigotry does make someone a bad person.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> Bigotry does make someone a bad person.


I have only ever met a handful of people around the world without a somewhat bigoted view of some group. In fact the group I find most pissed off at the Trans are gays. My guess that the group that you hang out with will be much faster to crucify you for wrongthink, than us "bigoted types".


----------



## Thunderbug (10 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> We face that with any posting to what we would call progressively challenged countries.  Ukrainian Canadians that might have to interact with Russians a Black soldier deployed to an area where black people are seen as inferior or women.  Women to the Middle East.  Or any other thing you can think of,
> 
> Having a diverse force also means we can do a lot of things others can’t.



I would argue the difference is that nobody chooses to be black or female. That's a condition of your birth, and discrimination on the basis of race or sex is prohibited in Canada.

Getting a face tattoo is a choice you make as an adult, and is both long-lasting and difficult to reverse. It's not a question of diversity, it's a question of people making body modifications which are not medically necessary and can't be easily removed.


----------



## winds_13 (10 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> I'm sorry, but whether or not certain people inherently deserve basic human rights and to be treated with the same respect and afforded the same opportunities as others is not "do they like pineapple on pizza". It's not a simple difference of opinion.
> 
> Bigotry does make someone a bad person.


btrudy, are you suggesting that basic human rights should be denied to certain people? Or are you suggesting that someone else in this forum has made such an argument?


----------



## Remius (10 Jul 2022)

Thunderbug said:


> I would argue the difference is that nobody chooses to be black or female. That's a condition of your birth, and discrimination on the basis of race or sex prohibited in Canada.
> 
> Getting a face tattoo is a choice you make as an adult, and is both long-lasting and difficult to reverse.


Being gay isn’t a choice either.  Your example is a posting in another country so they won’t care what is prohibited in Canada.   Countries that are anti homosexual won’t care tatoo or not.   Choice or not.  

We should manage our strengths like any other modern organisations and we shouldn’t develop policies based on how other countries view things.  If they don’t like racial minorities, women that work or homosexuals to effing bad for them.


----------



## btrudy (10 Jul 2022)

winds_13 said:


> btrudy, are you suggesting that basic human rights should be denied to certain people? Or are you suggesting that someone else in this forum has made such an argument?


The latter.


> Colin Parkinson said:
> 
> 
> > I also be blunt and say that the majority of trans people I have met are not worth the logistical and mental health costs to actively recruit.


----------



## Kilted (10 Jul 2022)

I don't get why people need to be able to dye their hair in unnatural colours?  If I was doing a job interview and someone came in with pink hair, I wouldn't hire them.  It's a personal choice and isn't protected under the Charter or Human Rights legislation.


----------



## btrudy (10 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> I don't get why people need to be able to dye their hair in unnatural colours?  If I was doing a job interview and someone came in with pink hair, I wouldn't hire them.  It's a personal choice and isn't protected under the Charter or Human Rights legislation.


It's a form of Freedom of Expression protected under section 2(b) of the Charter. Granted, if we continued to bar it it'd probably survive the challenge via the Oakes test, but it's still a protected right. How you choose to present yourself to the world, via hair, clothes, etc is absolutely a human right.


----------



## Thunderbug (10 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> Being gay isn’t a choice either.  Your example is a posting in another country so they won’t care what is prohibited in Canada.   Countries that are anti homosexual won’t care tatoo or not.   Choice or not.
> 
> We should manage our strengths like any other modern organisations and we shouldn’t develop policies based on how other countries view things.  If they don’t like racial minorities, women that work or homosexuals to effing bad for them.



I'm not saying that being LGBT is a choice. I am saying getting a face tattoo is a choice. Not all LGBT members have face tattoos.

The question I'm raising isn't whether some who is LGBT should be deployed, it's a question of whether there should be reasonable limits on what permanent body modifications someone can make to their face, as such modifications could have unforeseen or unintended consequences on how they are perceived. There are many examples of culturally sensitive images which do not promote hate but could be used to undermine our credibility if they were tattooed on somebody's face.


----------



## Kilted (10 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> It's a form of Freedom of Expression protected under section 2(b) of the Charter. Granted, if we continued to bar it it'd probably survive the challenge via the Oakes test, but it's still a protected right. How you choose to present yourself to the world, via hair, clothes, etc is absolutely a human right.


Which I suppose could potentially effect government hiring (which I think is a bit of a long shot), but it would have no bearing on the private sector who are not subject to the charter.


----------



## winds_13 (10 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> The latter.


Got it, I am still unsure which "basic human rights" you are suggesting  trans individuals would be denied by Colin's recommendation that the CAF not spend time and resources in "actively recruiting" them. Active recruitment of trans individuals would mean that the CAF spends resources (time, money) on recruitment efforts that actively target them as a subset of the population. The CAF doesn't do much in the way of active recruitment for the majority of identifiable groups of people, not even when it comes to actively recruiting for under strength trades (such as college students in computer networking programs to become signallers). Are you suggesting that this amounts to denial of their basic human rights. Is it a basic human right to have the fighting force of one's country spend money on ads that specifically target one's demographic? ...which right is that exactly?

For the record, I am for the new changes to the Dress Regs, in general, and believe that it is a much superior policy to a system where accommodation must be formally sought. I also look forward to being able to where my toque sans gloves, specifically.


----------



## Thunderbug (10 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> It's a form of Freedom of Expression protected under section 2(b) of the Charter. Granted, if we continued to bar it it'd probably survive the challenge via the Oakes test, but it's still a protected right. How you choose to present yourself to the world, via hair, clothes, etc is absolutely a human right.



Sweet, when are we ditching uniforms?


----------



## Kilted (10 Jul 2022)

Thunderbug said:


> A member at a unit located in a metropolitan city with a strong LGBT culture gets an LGBT pride symbol tattooed on their face, as an outward expression of their identity. Their CoC at the time is supportive as it does not contravene the regulations on tattoos being affiliated with hate groups, etc, and there is no impact to the performance of their duties.
> 
> Three years later the member is posted to another city and unit, which will be deploying shortly on an operation in a country where homosexuality is illegal and there is a strong anti-LGBT sentiment based on religious and cultural norms. While a SOFA exists preventing the member from being prosecuted under the country's dubious legal system, there are concerns that the member may become the target of a capable adversary who would exploit their image to undermine the mission and sow distrust among the strongly conservative host nation forces.
> 
> ...


I think in that case, regardless of how bad it would look, the CAF would have a responsibility not to deploy that person, not only for their safety but for the safety of those that they are working with.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jul 2022)

Basic human rights seems to be subjective and thrown around a lot. For example the United Nations say that broadband access is a basic human right  

The CAF takes away basic human rights by not giving recruits broadband internet in their room, or take when they take students phones away.


----------



## mariomike (10 Jul 2022)

Interesting discussion. I admit I had to look up a few terms I was unfamiliar with, because I was afraid to ask.

Only question the old army doc asked me along those lines was, "Do you like girls?"

Plenty of "How to dress for the interview" threads.

I wonder if this "New Dress regs" discussion will, or will not, influence how, going forward, applicants ( who read it ) will dress and groom themselves for "The Interview"?

Or, how members who release to interview for the RCMP, or other "public facing" careers will dress and groom?

It's rather old-fashioned to say this, but I believe first impressions are important when serving the public.

I read it only takes 7 seconds to form a first impression.


----------



## Kilted (10 Jul 2022)

Thunderbug said:


> Sweet, when are we ditching uniforms?


Our own logistic system will do that before long on its own without outside interference.


----------



## Kilted (10 Jul 2022)

winds_13 said:


> Got it, I am still unsure which "basic human rights" you are suggesting  trans individuals would be denied by Colin's recommendation that the CAF not spend time and resources in "actively recruiting" them. Active recruitment of trans individuals would mean that the CAF spends resources (time, money) on recruitment efforts that actively target them as a subset of the population. The CAF doesn't do much in the way of active recruitment for the majority of identifiable groups of people, not even when it comes to actively recruiting for under strength trades (such as college students in computer networking programs to become signallers). Are you suggesting that this amounts to denial of their basic human rights. Is it a basic human right to have the fighting force of one's country spend money on ads that specifically target one's demographic? ...which right is that exactly?
> 
> For the record, I am for the new changes to the Dress Regs, in general, and believe that it is a much superior policy to a system where accommodation must be formally sought. I also look forward to being able to where my toque sans gloves, specifically.


Do we have that many transgender people actively seeking enrollment in the CAF, and would that number actually go up with specific advertising?  And how many of those people that the CAF would be targeting would actually be suitable for service?  For example, unless it's changed, persons in the transition stages are not allowed to join, plus all of the other issues that may prevent your average person from joining?


----------



## winds_13 (10 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> It's a form of Freedom of Expression protected under section 2(b) of the Charter. Granted, if we continued to bar it it'd probably survive the challenge via the Oakes test, but it's still a protected right. How you choose to present yourself to the world, via hair, clothes, etc is absolutely a human right.


While I'm all for allowing CAF members to have dyed hair, I don't believe that personal appearance is covered under _Freedom of Expression_.

If you're going to expand the legal definition of free expression that far, then you could also argue that any physical act that you take could be considered a basic human right... As Thunderbug suggested, the same argument could be made for going nude in public.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jul 2022)

mariomike said:


> Only question the old army doc asked me along those lines was, "Do you like girls?"


Was this where you were diagnosed with Mechanophilia? 🚑


----------



## Kilted (10 Jul 2022)

winds_13 said:


> While I'm all for allowing CAF members to have dyed hair, I don't believe that personal appearance is covered under _Freedom of Expression_.
> 
> If you're going to expand the legal definition of free expression that far, then you could also argue that any physical act that you take could be considered a basic human right... As Thunderbug suggested, the same argument could be made for going nude in public.


I think that that is a thing in the UK, although I'm not sure if anyone actually understands the law.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> Do we have that many transgender people actively seeking enrollment in the CAF, and would that number actually go up with specific advertising?


The CAF has a slightly higher representation of trans members compared to Canadian society in general. 

Not bad for a predominately white male cis het organization with ancient dress regulations.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (10 Jul 2022)

As I have said, we will have these dress reg changes happen regardless of opinion or approval from the masses.

It's giving people an option until reality sets in. I don't dye my hair, keep it long, have a goatee, get face tattoos, or wear a skirt on the regular. Just because I can doesn't mean I will. Nor does it mean anyone who does decide to do so on Sep 6 will be doing so for Remembrance Day or Maple Clusterfuck 2023.

The operational impacts of this are microscopic. This is a lot of pearl clutching that we have also seen previously with Beardforgen and Weedforgen. The CAF is still standing... mostly... and we are still doing the business we're asked to do.

The greater concern I have for my troops is how they're going to afford food and rent in a market with no PLD and pay that hasn't kept pace for inflation.


----------



## winds_13 (10 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> I think that that is a thing in the UK, although I'm not sure if anyone actually understands the law.


The U.K.'s definition of Freedom of Expression:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises."






						Human Rights Act 1998
					

An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights; to make provision with respect to holders of certain judicial offices who become judges of the European Court of Human Rights; and for connected purposes.




					www.legislation.gov.uk
				




I am unaware of any legal challenges where someone successfully argued that their personal appearance fell under this protection (religious adornment aside). If such cases exist, I'd be interested in reading them.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (10 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> I think you seem to be failing to grasp the point that these changes are being implemented, to quote the CFCWO, "to better reflect the changing tastes of the Canadian society we serve".
> 
> Society has moved on from the notion that everyone needs to look like a proper English gentleman. So should we.


I'm no longer serving and work in the private sector now.  So I'll give my personal opinion:

Lets stop pretending this is about "reflecting changing tastes of Canadian society" or "recruitment".  It has nothing to really do with those things and will have no impact.

This is about protecting the CAF from legal liability and that is all.  Everything else is a secondary/tertiary concern.

The organization will adopt Its own new expectations and norms when the rules are adopted.  People who diverge from those expectations and the group-think will have a similarly terrible time that they would have in any other large organization.

Warning:  Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.  

Personally, I don't think the CAF is seen as a very serious organization anymore by our partners or the general population but the CAF can be whatever it wants to be.


----------



## Kilted (10 Jul 2022)

winds_13 said:


> The U.K.'s definition of Freedom of Expression:
> 
> "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises."
> 
> ...


It wasn't specifically human rights that I was referring to, I only meant that the laws regarding public nudity were much more lenient in the UK.


----------



## Kilted (10 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> As I have said, we will have these dress regs changes happen regardless of opinion or approval from the masses.
> 
> It's giving people an option until reality sets in. I don't die my hair, keep it long, have a goatee, get face tattoos, or wear a skirt on the regular. Just because I can doesn't mean I will. Nor does it mean anyone who does decide to do so on Sep 6 will be doing so for Remembrance Day or Maple Clusterfuck 2023.
> 
> ...


I suspect that there will still be a level of policing at the lowest level.  Just because the regs say that you can do something doesn't mean that your peers won't continually question why you are doing something/ or continually tell you how stupid that they think you look.


----------



## TacticalTea (10 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> It's a form of Freedom of Expression protected under section 2(b) of the Charter. Granted, if we continued to bar it it'd probably survive the challenge via the Oakes test, but it's still a protected right. How you choose to present yourself to the world, via hair, clothes, etc is absolutely a human right.


Look I'm on the fence wrt this whole discussion, but I gotta say you're severely undermining your point by claiming @Colin Parkinson is "a terrible person" for denying "basic human rights" yet claiming purple hair is one of those basic human rights.

As @Jarnhamar alluded to, I think we've lost track of what truly constitutes a *fundamental *right.


----------



## Kilted (10 Jul 2022)

Personally, I think that it was a travesty that the Barons did not insist that King John include hair colour in the Magna Carta.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (10 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> I suspect that there will still be a level of policing at the lowest level.  Just because the regs say that you can do something doesn't mean that your peers won't continually question why you are doing something/ or continually tell you how stupid that they think you look.


I don't even think it's a matter of peers even, I think it's just the reality of the situation.

 There is a lot of upkeep for certain looks and styles. I have had to counsel troops for not washing after PT, yet these same troops are going to maintain long hair with the same Axe 7 in 1 body wash they use occasionally? My spouse pays 200 bucks every 2 months to sit in a salon chair, for 5 hours,  to maintain her hair colour in such a way that it doesn't look like shit; lot more hassle than a 20 dollar haircut.

Same goes for field hygiene. Adds a whole new level of suck. If people are willing to put in the effort, you do you. Tattoos are forever, and the "Fuck the Dinosaurs" decision you make at 21 is yours to make, but might not be your jam at 42 or 32 even when Mr. Bloggins is now trying to get a job in the private sector.

Treat people like adults, they will behave as such. Some people will figure it out the hard way.


----------



## btrudy (10 Jul 2022)

winds_13 said:


> While I'm all for allowing CAF members to have dyed hair, I don't believe that personal appearance is covered under _Freedom of Expression_.
> 
> If you're going to expand the legal definition of free expression that far, then you could also argue that any physical act that you take could be considered a basic human right... As Thunderbug suggested, the same argument could be made for going nude in public.



I think it'd be quite reasonable to make the argument that going nude in public is an aspect of freedom of expression, however again, laws against it are something that the government would be very easily able to make a case for under the Oakes test.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> Bigotry does make someone a bad person.


I should add, that my inlaws are devout Muslims in a country with Sharia laws, no doubt you will consider them bigots, but my sister inlaw has made a significant difference for all the handicapped people in Malaysia as she pushed hard for them to have basic accessibility. My brother inlaw volunteers at a school for the blind, but by your standard these would be bad people because of their views on Trans and gays. Frankly I don't think anyone will survive your good/bad test.


----------



## winds_13 (10 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> I think it'd be quite reasonable to make the argument that going nude in public is an aspect of freedom of expression, however again, laws against it are something that the government would be very easily able to make a case for under the Oakes test.


Well, you also believe that arguments unlikely to pass legal scrutiny (the Oakes Test) are still protected... protected by what exactly, if not the law?


----------



## Kilted (10 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> I should add, that my inlaws are devout Muslims in a country with Sharia laws, no doubt you will consider them bigots, but my sister inlaw has made a significant difference for all the handicapped people in Malaysia as she pushed hard for them to have basic accessibility. My brother inlaw volunteers at a school for the blind, but by your standard these would be bad people because of their views on Trans and gays. Frankly I don't think anyone will survive your good/bad test.


Even in Canada, there is still protection for religious beliefs with regard to homosexuality.  For example, Ministers and other religious leaders cannot be forced to conduct same-sex marriages.


----------



## Remius (10 Jul 2022)

Bottom line if you value individual freedoms of expression then who cares how people dress, love or identify as.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Jul 2022)

Effective military culture requires people to submerge their egos, not parade them.


----------



## Kilted (10 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> Bottom line if you value individual freedoms of expression then who cares how people dress, love or identify as.


Well, if we truly cared about everyone's freedom of expression not being curtailed, we would let our people say whatever they want on social media, and speak to the media about anything the forces do that they disagree with.  That's not realistic, considering how much damage one untrained CIC Officer Cadet could have potentially done if the Forces hadn't taken swift action.  We live in a country with reasonable limits, someone joining the CAF should except that they won't be able to do whatever they want.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jul 2022)

CAF members should be banned from putting political signs on their lawn while we're at it 🦖


----------



## Kilted (10 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> CAF members should be banned from putting political signs on their lawn while we're at it 🦖


Depends if they live on base or if they actively present themselves as a military member in the context of their political activities.


----------



## btrudy (10 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Effective military culture requires people to submerge their egos, not parade them.



It requires people to work together as a part of a team in order to get the job done. It does not require people to ... not be human beings, with the full range of emotions and desires that being a human entails. 

We're not robots, not do we want people to be robots.


----------



## Remius (10 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> Well, if we truly cared about everyone's freedom of expression not being curtailed, we would let our people say whatever they want on social media, and speak to the media about anything the forces do that they disagree with.  That's not realistic, considering how much damage one untrained CIC Officer Cadet could have potentially done if the Forces hadn't taken swift action.  We live in a country with reasonable limits, someone joining the CAF should except that they won't be able to do whatever they want.


Sure.  But why would you limit homosexual relations or transgender types wearing what they want?


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Jul 2022)

The ability to work as a team presupposes the ability to not put "me" first.  The baseline is that a person who doesn't intend to be dramatic doesn't start by doing dramatic things.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> It requires people to work together as a part of a team in order to get the job done. It does not require people to ... not be human beings, with the full range of emotions and desires that being a human entails.
> 
> We're not robots, not do we want people to be robots.


Plot twist: we start using robots and they start bitching about unlocking different skins and cosmetics because they all want to be different.


----------



## Kilted (10 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> Sure.  But why would you limit homosexual relations or transgender types wearing what they want?


It's called a uniform for a reason. There were already mechanisms in place to allow people to pick which gender DEU they wore. 

When someone is in uniform they are representing the Canadian Forces as a whole, uniforms are meant to make everyone look the same, not find new ways to express themselves.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (10 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> The ability to work as a team presupposes the ability to not put "me" first.  The baseline is that a person who doesn't intend to be dramatic doesn't start by doing dramatic things.


This is a bit of a stretch, I am going to have to say.

We already have enough "me" aspects of our organization that demonstrate we can be a group of individuals united in a common effort. If we weren't, every Vandoo, Royal, and Patricia would be rebadged to generic RCIC numbered battalions and open to posting plots around the country. Same with RMC Grads vs DEO, CFR, UTPNCM, CiviU folks.

 We spent 50 years undoing numerous Unification Era "advances" because they weren't individual enough for some folks. You break it down all the way to trade, Pl, Section, fire team... we all want something that we can identify as being unique to our experience.

 Uniform dress isn't uniform in the sense that we intermingle as a CAF (many Blue, White, and Green shirts on my last parade, all dispersed within the ranks), we all have different bits and bobs hanging off of them, and yes, even our physical appearance even before 6 Sept 22 is different based on gender, religion, or even personal preference. 

This is just widening the Arcs we already have. It's not going to turn every CAF Member into some free thinking anarchist, nor are we going to actively recruit or attract those kinds of folks (very few anti-establishment types actively seek government employment...).

This is a tempest in a teapot in the grand scheme of things...


----------



## Kilted (10 Jul 2022)

I don't think that I will lose a lot of sleep over many of the changes, however, what's next?  How much further are we going to go down this rabbit hole?


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Jul 2022)

> This is a bit of a stretch, I am going to have to say.



Not from my vantage point, over many years.

A long period during which people fought for, and won, increased privacy. 

And now?  "Hey, look at me!"


----------



## btrudy (10 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> The ability to work as a team presupposes the ability to not put "me" first.  The baseline is that a person who doesn't intend to be dramatic doesn't start by doing dramatic things.



Here's a protip: wearing a skirt, having a pony tail, dying your hair... it's not dramatic. That's just them being themselves. 

Drama is, well... your reaction to the notion of people doing those things. 

On Sept 6, I'm gonna show up with purple hair, and guess what drama will ensue: literally none, unless some asshole decides to start some because they for some reason don't like it. That's on them, not on me. That'll be on you, when you whinge and rail about the notion that people might choose to look differently than you would choose to look.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (10 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> I don't think that I will lose a lot of sleep over many of the changes, however, what's next?  How much further are we going to go down this rabbit hole?


Too far for some, not far enough for others. 

There are folks that want to see Messes shut down, parades cease to be a thing, and have us turn into people that show up to do a job at 8 and go home at 4. 

There are others that want a return to conscription, 1950s norms and morals, and putting folks who aren't in a specific mold back in their place.

The dichotomy of it is that we are an organization with 157 years of history (more if we look at lineage etc.) that has evolved and shifted with every advancement in the society we represent and protect. In all of it, uniforms, dress, personal grooming, who we recruited, training methods, hell warfare in general all have changed and been adapted as needed.

This is a ripple in that timeline


----------



## Kilted (10 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Too far for some, not far enough for others.
> 
> There are folks that want to see Messes shut down, parades cease to be a thing, and have us turn into people that show up to do a job at 8 and go home at 4.
> 
> ...


It wouldn't surprise me if we see messes shut down, if for nothing other than for liability reasons.  I'm sure that there are a couple of COs out there who would love to get rid of their messes.  The whole 8-4 thing isn't realistic, but we also don't have to have people sitting around for the sake of being there.  I know I'm coming at this from a Class A perspective, but I can't count the number of times that I've gone into the armoury for something that only took me 20 minutes to do, but then end up being there for hours for this and that, mostly because people don't plan things ahead of time, but that is another issue.

I think that conscription would do amazing things for this country, but hoping for it isn't realistic.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Jul 2022)

> That'll be on you, when you whinge and rail about the notion that people might choose to look differently than you would choose to look.



I'm not tolerant; I'm indifferent.  I don't care about oddness just in itself.  I care about what it reveals about emotional stability, and thus suitability for employment.  I can guess that somewhere on the spectrum from "tattoo and an earring" to "circus sideshow" there's a cutoff.


----------



## btrudy (10 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> I'm not tolerant; I'm indifferent.  I don't care about oddness just in itself.  I care about what it reveals about emotional stability, and thus suitability for employment.  I can guess that somewhere on the spectrum from "tattoo and an earring" to "circus sideshow" there's a cutoff.



Hah I've known a hell of a lot of people in the CAF who were perfectly within the dress regs, and unstable as hell for various reasons. Frankly, I think the correlation you're thinking of is just in your head.


----------



## Remius (10 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> It's called a uniform for a reason. There were already mechanisms in place to allow people to pick which gender DEU they wore.
> 
> When someone is in uniform they are representing the Canadian Forces as a whole, uniforms are meant to make everyone look the same, not find new ways to express themselves.


And the uniform itself isn’t changing.   We are changing the dress regs before we are doing it now and we’ll do it again. Everyone is still wearing a uniform. 

Ever see a militia mixed unit parade.  Not exactly « uniform » but everyone is still wearing one type or another.


----------



## lenaitch (10 Jul 2022)

Always an interesting, albeit rather pointless, discussion.   Law enforcement, and probably most other emergency services, deal with similar issues.  I realize things evolve but I've often wondered about one who would voluntarily joins an organization whose very ethos is collective effort, common goal, unity of command, etc. and then argue the importance of individuality.

Public agencies angst over this while private industry doesn't have to care.  Try saying you're not into funny hats, certain colours or grooming rules and see how long that job at Tim's last.  They don't have to couch them in safety or justify them; so long as they aren't discriminatory, private industry can simply hang its hat on the corporate image they wish to project.

I'd really have to see a legally sound discussion that convinces me that every single action, decision, voluntary quirk, want or fad is a Charter protected freedom of expression.  I can find no reference that says the courts have ever ruled on whether matters of appearance or grooming are even covered under Section 2.  To the contrary, one of the concepts they have ruled on is "expressive content", defined as "an activity or communication that conveys or attempts to convey meaning'.  Hard to see how pink hair, nose studs or refusal to wear a hat is covered.


----------



## Remius (10 Jul 2022)

Why does hair colour matter?  We have blond, black, brown, red, none, grey, mix. So why is pink specifically an issue? Or blue or whatever?  It’s not like we force everyone to get a Lego jet black colour or everyone have shaved heads to avoid hair colour in the first place. 

If we accept that people will have different hair colour ie not all the same then what does it matter what hair colour people choose to sport?


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> Why does hair colour matter?  We have blond, black, brown, red, none, grey, mix. So why is pink specifically an issue? Or blue or whatever?


We're in the military, is that honestly a serious question? You'd find nothing unprofessional about someone dying their hair like an actual rainbow clown wig? Or hot pink with neon green streaks?

Ultimately we're the face of the Government of Canada's foreign policy. If the Government wants our foreign policy to look like an absolute clown show because apparently someone thinks the were supposed to be born with purple and neon green hair, giddy'up.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Jul 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> We're in the military, is that honestly a serious question? You'd find nothing unprofessional about someone dying their hair like an actual rainbow clown wig? Or hot pink with neon green streaks?
> 
> Ultimately we're the face of the Government of Canada's foreign policy. If the Government wants our foreign policy to look like an absolute clown show because apparently someone thinks the were supposed to be born with purple and neon green hair, giddy'up.


Perhaps fright wigs and clown shoes issued? 

Joking 🙃


----------



## mariomike (11 Jul 2022)

lenaitch said:


> Law enforcement, and probably most other emergency services, deal with similar issues.



Not being in enforcement, my view was 90% of our work was likeablity with the public.

They might not remember your technical skills. But, for sure they remembered your customer service skills.

A smile and a shoe shine went a long way. 



> Try saying you're not into funny hats, certain colours or grooming rules and see how long that job at Tim's last.



Or, Air Canada cabin crew.


----------



## Remius (11 Jul 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> We're in the military, is that honestly a serious question? You'd find nothing unprofessional about someone dying their hair like an actual rainbow clown wig? Or hot pink with neon green streaks?
> 
> Ultimately we're the face of the Government of Canada's foreign policy. If the Government wants our foreign policy to look like an absolute clown show because apparently someone thinks the were supposed to be born with purple and neon green hair, giddy'up.


The fact that some people think that we will suddenly have a whole army of that is a ridiculous position.  Yes it’s a serious question.  Your premise isn’t a serious one.  The ones that do that sort of thing are generally not the ones that gravitate towards a military career anyways.  These are the same tired arguments about pony tails, pig tails and beards.

Who cares what colour hair they have .  As I said, it won’t fix our problems but it won’t make them any worse.  We’ll have one offs here and there but you won’t be seing full units of that stuff.  Like everything else it blows over once people realise no one cares.  But you can bet if they (the odd rabble rouser) think it will upset you they will.  So just don’t get upset.  And they will quickly revert to the common denominator. 

And yes we are in the military.  One that adapts to the current times.  Not sure why pink hair would keep anyone up at night.


----------



## btrudy (11 Jul 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> We're in the military, is that honestly a serious question? You'd find nothing unprofessional about someone dying their hair like an actual rainbow clown wig? Or hot pink with neon green streaks?


Honestly, no. I don't have any problems whatsoever with actual rainbow hair colours. 




LIterally nothing wrong with these.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Jul 2022)

This is a classic CAF over correction, and it's a shame you can't see it. Our credibility as a military force is directly related to how we look. If you show up with garbage kit, a ZZ top beard and pink hair; you better believe you're not going to be taken seriously. There is absolutely nothing wrong with men having collar-length, natural coloured hair and a beard of a few inches in length.

Like it or not, worldwide military dress and deportment policies are conservative in nature. Even the Nordic countries that allow long hair and beards don't have multi-colour mops of unkept hair.

We are not going to get a recruiting boom, we are not going to get a retention boom, and if you look around outside there's not a whole heck of a lot of people with unnatural hair colouring. We're changing for the absolute smallest of minorities, and it will do absolutely nothing for "inclusion" in the CAF.


----------



## QV (11 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> Honestly, no. I don't have any problems whatsoever with actual rainbow hair colours.
> 
> View attachment 71941View attachment 71942View attachment 71943
> 
> ...


I don't know… “why things are seen“ comes to mind. But you do you.


----------



## btrudy (11 Jul 2022)

QV said:


> I don't know… “why things are seen“ comes to mind. But you do you.



Hence the ability to order that brightly coloured hair can be covered up in situations where being seen is a bad thing.

I mean, hell, the same could probably be said of people who just have blonde hair.


----------



## Quirky (11 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> LIterally nothing wrong with these.



Some mental health issues are hidden, some are not.


----------



## FSTO (11 Jul 2022)

I want my 8 button jacket. I heard that is a human right now.


----------



## btrudy (11 Jul 2022)

Quirky said:


> Some mental health issues are hidden, some are not.





Suffice it to say that I do not feel there is any evidence to back up your implied assertion that simply wanting hair that isn't boring is directly tied to mental illness. People can make choices that you wouldn't make without being literally crazy.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Jul 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> This is a classic CAF over correction, and it's a shame you can't see it. Our credibility as a military force is directly related to how we look. If you show up with garbage kit, a ZZ top beard and pink hair; you better believe you're not going to be taken seriously. There is absolutely nothing wrong with men having collar-length, natural coloured hair and a beard of a few inches in length.
> 
> Like it or not, worldwide military dress and deportment policies are conservative in nature. Even the Nordic countries that allow long hair and beards don't have multi-colour mops of unkept hair.
> 
> We are not going to get a recruiting boom, we are not going to get a retention boom, and if you look around outside there's not a whole heck of a lot of people with unnatural hair colouring. We're changing for the absolute smallest of minorities, and it will do absolutely nothing for "inclusion" in the CAF.


Like I said, can't wait to see this in action 😁


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Jul 2022)

People keep talking about our credibility.  

I have a couple uneducated points WRT this:

1)  You know what builds credibility ?  Capability.  Want us to be credible ?  Have capability to bring to the battle space.  That will speak louder than finger nail maintenance. 

2)  We (The West) are continually, soundly beaten and sent packing by disorganized mish-mash forces in man jammies with what ever weapons they can scrape up.  They don't seem to fret much on hair color or if pants or skirts should be worn by who ever. 

Anyways, I imagine this will be a bridge too far for some, and that's fair; unlike others I think this is a big change.  And its firmly leaving behind a period of our history and probably culture.  If its too much and you chose not to continue I would like to thank you for stepping forward and being accounted for while you were in.  I'm sure you served with pride and I wish you the best in the future.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> simply wanting hair that isn't boring



This is microagression against people with natural coloured hair who don't want to dye it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jul 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> We're changing for the absolute smallest of minorities, and it will do absolutely nothing for "inclusion" in the CAF.



Are we changing because CAF leadership thought this up or are we changing because the government said change.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (11 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Are we changing because CAF leadership thought this up or are we changing because the government said change.


It was actually the Defence Women's Advisory Counsel that staffed up the Briefing Note. It got traction all the way up through CMP and eventually landed at the CDS, was discussed at length at AFC, and was finally approved and will be implemented in September. 

This is an internal want that was staffed, actioned and approved entirely by the CAF.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Are we changing because CAF leadership thought this up or are we changing because the government said change.



I look at it more like a modernization.  Our D&D regulations and policy was/is wildly out of date and in dire need of modernization. 

Now I hope to see National policies on dress set in bedrock and thus remove any and all ambiguity and ability by local commanders to play fast and loose and put their own spin on things, because change is scary for them.


----------



## btrudy (11 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Are we changing because CAF leadership thought this up or are we changing because the government said change.



Neither. It's a bottom up initiative. The DWAO drafted a briefing note, sent it up the chain, the chain eventually said "Yeah, sounds good, let's do it.".

Edit: Oops; missed the next message




Halifax Tar said:


> I look at it more like a modernization.  Our D&D regulations and policy was/is wildly out of date and in dire need of modernization.
> 
> Now I hope to see National policies on dress set in bedrock and thus remove any and all ambiguity and ability by local commanders to play fast and loose and put their own spin on things, because change is scary for them.



I strongly suggest that the personal appearance aspects at least will have a strong "bone fide operational reasons only" wording attached to any restrictions. 

But with regards to actual uniforms, yes it would also be very ideal to, for example, eliminate any chance of toque-glove flow-chart bullshittery from CoCs.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> But with regards to actual uniforms, yes it would also be very ideal to, for example, eliminate any chance of toque-glove flow-chart bullshittery from CoCs.



Ya, that's what I was getting at, not the operational influences that may be necessary.  I've been at this for 22 or 23 years now, and I still shake my head that we issue national policy and then leave a loop hole for someone with a bone to pick to go their own way.


----------



## KevinB (11 Jul 2022)




----------



## KevinB (11 Jul 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I look at it more like a modernization.  Our D&D regulations and policy was/is wildly out of date and in dire need of modernization.
> 
> Now I hope to see National policies on dress set in bedrock and thus remove any and all ambiguity and ability by local commanders to play fast and loose and put their own spin on things, because change is scary for them.


Honestly the CAF would have been better off years ago if it simply mandated Mens’s haircuts and uniforms for anyone in a field unit. 

Short hair came about from lice in the trenches.    
  I was busy growing a bad ass Navy Sealtm
Beard, when I got sprayed by shit, piss and whatever else was in that Afghan ditch- it must also have had some diesel in it - but I couldn’t clean out that beard for love nor money - and as a result shaved it off.   

I’m about the least uniform guy in the world - but I think for at least basic training and entry level occupation courses that uniformity teaches something - both attention to detail and conformity to the group that the whole is more important than the self. 

I view most of these changes in the CAF as a bad joke.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> Honestly the CAF would have been better off years ago if it simply mandated Mens’s haircuts and uniforms for anyone in a field unit.
> 
> Short hair came about from lice in the trenches.
> I was busy growing a bad ass Navy Sealtm
> ...



I see your point.  And its valid.  Personally, I think most folks will find the practicality of a lot of these changes, while employed in an operational environment, will be more more squeeze than juice and simply revert to a simple and basic grooming standard.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> It was actually the Defence Women's Advisory Counsel that staffed up the Briefing Note. It got traction all the way up through CMP and eventually landed at the CDS, was discussed at length at AFC, and was finally approved and will be implemented in September.
> 
> This is an internal want that was staffed, actioned and approved entirely by the CAF.


I'm surprised but that's great.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (11 Jul 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I see your point.  And its valid.  Personally, I think most folks will find the practicality of a lot of these changes, while employed in an operational environment, will be more more squeeze than juice and simply revert to a simply basic grooming standard.


I agree totally with this belief. I also think that if Bloggins is riding a desk for most of their career in Ottawa, their concerns about operational environments is far lower than someone crashing through the bush for months on end in a Battalion. 

I have been on Category for 7 years for shaving (like a legitimate one. I developed eczema overseas from using dirty water). I can amd do maintain my beard to the standards set in the CFDI. When I deploy, if the threat exists operationally, I will shave it off. It's a practical reason for me to need to do it. Me needing to shave every day because "but what if..." or "I'm the SSM and I say no beard!" is ridiculous.

The same will end up happening with this. Those that have a desire or need to modify their appearance will have the avenue to. Safety and operational performance will always be maintained above personal "wants" (they aren't rights in this case). 

As I have said earlier, wait until the first ship sails or the first Bde Ex. What's cool in Garrison is a pain in the ass when you're short on water or that combat scarf gets annoying 24/7.

Just because the door is open doesn't mean everyone is going to walk through it. I certainly won't be, but I won't harp on people who do.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Jul 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> People keep talking about our credibility.
> 
> I have a couple uneducated points WRT this:
> 
> ...


Now if we had that, I bet our recruitment would be a lot better and people would quickly forget about painting nails and hair colour 😄


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I agree totally with this belief. I also think that if Bloggins is riding a desk for most of their career in Ottawa, their concerns about operational environments is far lower than someone crashing through the bush for months on end in a Battalion.
> 
> I have been on Category for 7 years for shaving (like a legitimate one. I developed eczema overseas from using dirty water). I can amd do maintain my beard to the standards set in the CFDI. When I deploy, if the threat exists operationally, I will shave it off. It's a practical reason for me to need to do it. Me needing to shave every day because "but what if..." or "I'm the SSM and I say no beard!" is ridiculous.
> 
> ...


----------



## Navy_Pete (11 Jul 2022)

I think this is really the thing; maintaining long hair, fancy beards, hair dye, nails etc takes time and effort. If you are rocking an office job, you do you.

If you have time to do all of this while deployed, you probably aren't pulling your weight, or your deployment job could maybe be done from Canada. I suspect most people will have an 'office standard' then put their game face on because they just can't be arsed on deployment.

This will be an interesting one for OUTCAN posting; suspect a lot of them will just follow local dress standards for grooming, at least for things like requiring a natural hair colour.


----------



## ueo (11 Jul 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> This is just a addition as to why it is becoming a joke. There isn’t much that instills me with pride in this organization. We are unable to do our job (protect Canada) without significant assistance of foreign forces (mainly the US). We are poorly equipped with aging equipment which has no intentions of being replaced. We have a ton of out of shape troops whose uniforms I have to wonder if ‘Woods’ (the tent company) made them. We constantly are lowering our standards instead of trying to bring the standards up. We have toxic work environments where people are afraid to speak their mind or make a joke for fear of it being taken wrong. Can you explain to me how our military isn’t much of a joke?
> 
> Yes I am against anyone having long hair in the field, even women, it works fine for the low intensity conflicts we have fought for the last while, but for a higher intensity one we should default to the easiest to maintain length (i.e. short). I have had long hair and short hair and can tell you that the amount of effort needed to maintain long hair is wasted effort when it could be spent on other things in war.
> 
> ...


Sounds like the "Mother" army of Holland in the 60's Doesn;t it?


----------



## ueo (11 Jul 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Not too many long-haired men, to be honest...
> 
> At any rate, this new policy doesn't resolve the number one issue that ruins my hair: having to wear a god damn hat everywhere! Who even wears hats anymore in Canadian society!?


Every "red blooded" male  in his !/2 t truck!


btrudy said:


> It's a form of Freedom of Expression protected under section 2(b) of the Charter. Granted, if we continued to bar it it'd probably survive the challenge via the Oakes test, but it's still a protected right. How you choose to present yourself to the world, via hair, clothes, etc is absolutely a human right.


I call BS!!!! Never read about this wvev in the fine print.


----------



## ueo (11 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> I think it'd be quite reasonable to make the argument that going nude in public is an aspect of freedom of expression, however again, laws against it are something that the government would be very easily able to make a case for under the Oakes test.


Oakes Test? Olease define in a few words.


----------



## Kilted (11 Jul 2022)

I'm just waiting for the first complaint because someone gets passed over for the National Sentry program because they have pink hair.


That just gave me an awful thought, people dying their hair two weeks before Remembrance Day to get out of things like Cenotaph Guard or speaking engagements.


----------



## Remius (11 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> I'm just waiting for the first complaint because someone gets passed over for the National Sentry program because they have pink hair.
> 
> 
> That just gave me an awful thought, people dying their hair two weeks before Remembrance Day to get out of things like Cenotaph Guard or speaking engagements.


The cenotaph guard is not just some « voluntold » task.  There is a nomination process, vetting and bios provided.  Switched on people are selected for that and it’s taken very seriously by those that do it.  

Speaking engagements are normally volunteer based on November 11th.  

I believe there are rules in the dress regs for ceremonial.


----------



## Quirky (11 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> Suffice it to say that I do not feel there is any evidence to back up your implied assertion that simply wanting hair that isn't boring is directly tied to mental illness. People can make choices that you wouldn't make without being literally crazy.



"Boring" aka natural vs unnatural self-dyed hair colors is one of the signs of mental illness and those who struggle with self-image problems. Please dye your hair a crazy color go out in public in uniform and see the reactions, I can guarantee you it won't be positive. Our larger bases are in primarily conservative areas of the country, you might have a more positive reaction in Ottawa vs say a base on the prairies. Reactions to these dress changes were largely negative by the public and will only further erode our legitimacy. I won't take you seriously with a full head of pink or purple hair, you are free to "express" yourself, but that's the way it is.




Kilted said:


> I'm just waiting for the first complaint because someone gets passed over for the National Sentry program because they have pink hair.
> 
> That just gave me an awful thought, people dying their hair two weeks before Remembrance Day to get out of things like Cenotaph Guard or speaking engagements.



On the contrary, bring only pink and purple hair for the next Ottawa RD parade.  Circus is in town.


----------



## Kilted (11 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> The cenotaph guard is not just some « voluntold » task.  There is a nomination process, vetting and bios provided.  Switched on people are selected for that and it’s taken very seriously by those that do it.
> 
> Speaking engagements are normally volunteer based on November 11th.
> 
> I believe there are rules in the dress regs for ceremonial.


I'm not talking about the service at the National War Memorial, I'm talking about every other cenotaph in the country, which sometimes the selection of the guard comes down to who has the right uniform. 

As far as speaking engagements go, I'm sure it's possible for them to be voluntary, but the majority of the ones I have seen have not been, especially if they fall on the actual day.


----------



## QV (11 Jul 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Now if we had that, I bet our recruitment would be a lot better and people would quickly forget about painting nails and hair colour 😄


This is classic CAF doing the opposite of what will be helpful. 

Sure, make some modern adjustments to dress and deportment... and lets get capability back (which will improve morale, retention, recruitment). 

CAF: "Pink hair don't care"


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Jul 2022)

Quirky said:


> "Boring" aka natural vs unnatural self-dyed hair colors is one of the signs of mental illness and those who struggle with self-image problems.



Do you have any actual peer reviewed medical or psychological publications or statistics to support this summation ? 

You, or someone else perhaps,  have said it a few times in this thread and I have never heard of such a thing.


----------



## mariomike (11 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> why do we spend so much time focusing on being ready for dog and pony shows?



Funding? That includes public support for pay and benefit increases.



> Please dye your hair a crazy color go out in public in uniform and see the reactions, I can guarantee you it won't be positive. Our larger bases are in primarily conservative areas of the country, you might have a more positive reaction in Ottawa vs say a base on the prairies. Reactions to these dress changes were largely negative by the public and will only further erode our legitimacy. I won't take you seriously with a full head of pink or purple hair, you are free to "express" yourself, but that's the way it is.


----------



## Grimey (11 Jul 2022)

FSTO said:


> I want my 8 button jacket. I heard that is a human right now.


You got your exec curl back, suck it up


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Jul 2022)

FSTO said:


> I want my 8 button jacket. I heard that is a human right now.



Executive Curl - Check 
New RN Styled Peaked Caps - Check 
New NCM Rank Insignia - Nope 
8 Button Jacket - Nope 

2/4 is a .500 batting average, not bad.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jul 2022)

> Do you have any actual peer reviewed medical or psychological publications or statistics to support this summation ?



Studies, synopses, and discussions are easy to find with web searches.  Much of it seems equivocal to me; it almost all leans the same way so I doubt it's all wrong.  Behaviours typically mentioned are risk-taking and attention-seeking, along with greater likelihood of having some kind of mental health diagnosis (which is broad but still not meaningless).  Expect to find lower rates as time passes and more people indulge in body art.  Obviously some kinds of body art are markers intended to signal membership in a tribe.


----------



## Navy_Pete (11 Jul 2022)

I got my new peak cap in the mail recently; it looks cheap AF and kind of Soviet.

At least it no longer comes with a packing ring for shipping for people to leave in, and then complain it doesn't fit their heads properly.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Studies, synopses, and discussions are easy to find with web searches.  Much of it seems equivocal to me; it almost all leans the same way so I doubt it's all wrong.  Behaviours typically mentioned are risk-taking and attention-seeking, along with greater likelihood of having some kind of mental health diagnosis (which is broad but still not meaningless).  Expect to find lower rates as time passes and more people indulge in body art.  Obviously some kinds of body art are markers intended to signal membership in a tribe.



Its not my job to support someone else position.  But I did google it and I got responses from sites like thedailycougar.com (Nope), quora.com (Nope) and Reddit.  If you can actually provide some empirical data and not just some anonymous opinions I would love to see it.  I'm a father, I am always interested what to look for to ensure my daughter grows up happy, healthy and well adjusted. 

Body art in militaries isn't something new.  I have a bunch of tattoos and some body piercings, when I first got in one or two tattoos wasn't uncommon in society or the CAF.  Now Tattoos are pretty common, its rare to find someone with out them. Im also pretty well grounded, wife, kid, house, camp, two dogs, no criminal record, never needed mental help...



Navy_Pete said:


> I got my new peak cap in the mail recently; it looks cheap AF and kind of Soviet.
> 
> At least it no longer comes with a packing ring for shipping for people to leave in, and then complain it doesn't fit their heads properly.



I agree, I found it looks Soviet and I am not convinced of its quality.


----------



## Navy_Pete (11 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Studies, synopses, and discussions are easy to find with web searches.  Much of it seems equivocal to me; it almost all leans the same way so I doubt it's all wrong.  Behaviours typically mentioned are risk-taking and attention-seeking, along with greater likelihood of having some kind of mental health diagnosis (which is broad but still not meaningless).  Expect to find lower rates as time passes and more people indulge in body art.  Obviously some kinds of body art are markers intended to signal membership in a tribe.


The keywords you'll want are 'comobidity; and either transgender or gender dismorphia.

Much higher rates of suicidiation, depression and various other MH issues compared to the rest of the population, but because it's such a small sample size who knows. Also much higher rates of suicide post-transition compared to the population. Stong arguement that might be due to a lack of acceptance in wider society.

Having said that, there are other populations that also have higher rates of co-morbidities than the rest of the population like folks with ASD or otherwise neurodivergent (ND), and plenty of people in the majority that also have MH issues. We evaluate people on a case by case basis, not with what group they fall into, which I think is the right approach. Lots of folks with ASD (especially with how broad the criteria is now) that excel in the CAF, but it's a blanket recruitment disqualifier for the US and some other allies. 

I don't think we'll ever really understand how the brain works, and even with all the improved techniques now for scanning etc it's not even scratching the surface, so all we can do is screen people during recruitment, evaluate their performance during training and go from there. Still not a guarantee of performance in a real combat situation, but do the best you can. At the end of the day though, not up to the CAF to right general societal wrongs by hiring people that aren't capable of doing the job, and I think regardless of how they identify or what colour their hair is, it would be negligent to put people in dangerous situations if they can't handle it.

I personally don't care about the dress code changes, and don't think most people will even bother to do something that's more work than not doing it, but I think it would be stupid to screen people out because of how they want to dress. I used to have long hair, occasionally dyed, sometimes a mohawk, but honestly just too much work. I think the uptake on this will be low, and a lot of people that do it because they can will not keep it up long (because again, more extra effort), but this is just a distraction for the fact that we are massively overplanned and under-staffed. 

Making real changes is bringing our staffing numbers up above 50%, slapping down and punting people that abuse their authority, and rebuilding our forces. This shit is a headline that will make 10 people happy and take up high level resources. The change has been made, roger, lets move on to big issues that are creating significant operational/capability risks and putting people in unecessary danger/stress.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jul 2022)

Try "research tattoo piercing behaviour".  Maybe also try something other than "G" as search engine so you're not getting whatever "G" thinks is relevant/acceptable.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jul 2022)

> Stong arguement that might be due to a lack of acceptance in wider society.



We haven't even resolved the measure of how many people claim to want to be something they aren't because of other issues, or develop other issues because they want to be something else.  If it turns out that the sudden spikes in numbers are due to other issues, obviously the other issues are the correct focal point.  Tolerance/indifference people should reasonably expect; "pay attention to me" they should not.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Jul 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Do you have any actual peer reviewed medical or psychological publications or statistics to support this summation ?
> 
> You, or someone else perhaps,  have said it a few times in this thread and I have never heard of such a thing.


It's anecdotal but from my own experience that a larger percentage of people who dye their hair crazy colour are higher "maintenance". Some are awesome and great, but I always approach anyone with such hair with caution until I have determined where they sit in the spectrum.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Try "research tattoo piercing behaviour".  Maybe also try something other than "G" as search engine so you're not getting whatever "G" thinks is relevant/acceptable.



Again, it's not my job to support someone else's position.  

So far all anyone has provided is opinions, anecdotal points and go for search for yourself and don't use google.

Sounds to me like more scared of change folks grasping at straws to rail against what they don't like and understand.


----------



## FSTO (11 Jul 2022)

Grimey said:


> You got your exec curl back, suck it up


But …….. I WANT IT ALLLLLLL!!!!


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jul 2022)

> Sounds to me like more scared of change folks grasping at straws to rail against what they don't like and understand.



Sounds like you're using not having it presented on a platter as an excuse for denial.

There are so many available links, and sociology/psychology are so fraught with poorly done studies, that there's not much point in one person trying to find "the study" that would satisfy anyone whose default position is skeptical.  If you're curious, have a look.  If not, don't bother.  I suppose you could just arbitrarily pick a flake website from a search and use it as a proxy for disproof.


----------



## Kilted (11 Jul 2022)

The new CANFORGEN states that female and transgendered members are allowed to be reimbursed for up to $180 a year for underwear. And I still have to hand in my old underwear for clothing stores to give me new ones. 

What are we calling this PANTYFORGEN?


----------



## KevinB (11 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> The new CANFORGEN states that female and transgendered members are allowed to be reimbursed for up to $180 a year for underwear. And I still have to hand in my old underwear for clothing stores to give me new ones.
> 
> What are we calling this PANTYFORGEN?


Discrimination at the very least...


----------



## Remius (11 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> The new CANFORGEN states that female and transgendered members are allowed to be reimbursed for up to $180 a year for underwear. And I still have to hand in my old underwear for clothing stores to give me new ones.
> 
> What are we calling this PANTYFORGEN?


Given the current climate in the CAF, not going anywhere near that.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (11 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> The new CANFORGEN states that female and transgendered members are allowed to be reimbursed for up to $180 a year for underwear. And I still have to hand in my old underwear for clothing stores to give me new ones.
> 
> What are we calling this PANTYFORGEN?


Do you menstruate? Do you have a uterus? A vagina? ovaries? Have you tried to put a pad in the current issue boxer shorts? No? Then its not for you. Move along.

Its the same thing as the sports bra allowance. Rather than make a shitty, one-size-fits-all, product for a select few that need it; they're fronting the cost for the members who need it for operational reasons. There are restrictions in design and style and this isn't a blank check for our female or trans members to go hit up VS for the hell of it. 

As for you needing to return gitch to get new gitch, either your Clothing Stores staff are incompetent in reading the SAM (next to skin items are no return items. You should get your yearly entitlement no matter what) or I call BS.


----------



## Weinie (11 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Do you menstruate? Do you have a uterus? A vagina? ovaries? Have you tried to put a pad in the current issue boxer shorts? No? Then its not for you. Move along.
> 
> Its the same thing as the sports bra allowance. Rather than make a shitty, one-size-fits-all, product for a select few that need it; they're fronting the cost for the members who need it for operational reasons. There are restrictions in design and style and this isn't a blank check for our female or trans members to go hit up VS for the hell of it.
> 
> As for you needing to return gitch to get new gitch, either your Clothing Stores staff are incompetent in reading the SAM (next to skin items are no return items. *You should get your yearly entitlement no matter what) or I call BS.*


Careful on what you call BS. In Ottawa, I tried for about 5 years to get new gitch issued. Clothing stores stated that unless I was going on an operational tour, I wasn't entitled. After that, I opted to go to Walmart to get gitch, as it was less frustrating then debating MY yearly entitlement (and almost as cost effective, as I had to pay $10 bucks for parking, plus wait 2 hours, to discuss with the the (Non) supply tech)


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Do you menstruate? Do you have a uterus? A vagina? ovaries? Have you tried to put a pad in the current issue boxer shorts? No? Then its not for you. Move along.
> 
> Its the same thing as the sports bra allowance. Rather than make a shitty, one-size-fits-all, product for a select few that need it; they're fronting the cost for the members who need it for operational reasons. There are restrictions in design and style and this isn't a blank check for our female or trans members to go hit up VS for the hell of it.
> 
> As for you needing to return gitch to get new gitch, either your Clothing Stores staff are incompetent in reading the SAM (next to skin items are no return items. You should get your yearly entitlement no matter what) or I call BS.



There was a time you had to return undies to get new ones.  The poster may not know we don't do that anymore.  I also remember when you had to bring in the waist band. Lol ya we've done some stupid crap.



Brad Sallows said:


> Sounds like you're using not having it presented on a platter as an excuse for denial.
> 
> There are so many available links, and sociology/psychology are so fraught with poorly done studies, that there's not much point in one person trying to find "the study" that would satisfy anyone whose default position is skeptical.  If you're curious, have a look.  If not, don't bother.  I suppose you could just arbitrarily pick a flake website from a search and use it as a proxy for disproof.



Yes that must be it.  I can't find support for your position, and you won't provide any, so it must be because I'm entitled.  

You have a great day friend.


----------



## Kilted (11 Jul 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> There was a time you had to return undies to get new ones.  The poster may not know we don't do that anymore.  I also remember when you had to bring in the waist band. Lol ya we've done some stupid crap.


So you're saying that if I was to walk into Toronto today (or realistically six weeks from now when I could actually get an appointment), they would give me new underwear without having to turn the old ones or listen to a bunch of other excuses why they couldn't give it to me?


----------



## QV (11 Jul 2022)

Parenting decisions are hard... Harder if you need peer reviewed studies for every common sense application.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> So you're saying that if I was to walk into Toronto today (or realistically six weeks from now when I could actually get an appointment), they would give me new underwear without having to turn the old ones or listen to a bunch of other excuses why they couldn't give it to me?



You should be able too.  It's a NOSI (Next Of Skin Item) they don't want your dirty used gitch back.  The only reason I could see them not completing the exchange is there is no stock or there may be a once a year thing attached to gitch like TShirts.  

Hang on I have a work computer at home I will check the SAM for you.


----------



## PMedMoe (11 Jul 2022)

I'm only skimming the posts here because I really couldn't care less, but it's so _nice_ to know I might have a MH problem because I have tattoos, piercings and have coloured my hair.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (11 Jul 2022)

PMedMoe said:


> I'm only skimming the posts here because I really couldn't care less, but it's so _nice_ to know I might have a MH problem because I have tattoos, piercings and have coloured my hair.


Honestly, this thread has descended into the "I miss the back in the day where people conformed to our standards" camp and the "This isn't a big deal, let it go" camp. 
Both are at an impasse and both are adamant they're right. Other than that synopsis, you're not going to have a good time on the other 36 pages of this thread.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> So you're saying that if I was to walk into Toronto today (or realistically six weeks from now when I could actually get an appointment), they would give me new underwear without having to turn the old ones or listen to a bunch of other excuses why they couldn't give it to me?



Yup your combat undies are authorized for yearly issue or exchange. Unless you're an A Class reservist.  Then it's a one for one exchange.  Which is gross.  

We should change that.  Leave it with me.  I don't want my JR tradespeople having to deal with used underwear, reservist poo stains or otherwise. 

This also includes T-shirts and CAF Combat Sock System.


----------



## dangerboy (11 Jul 2022)

Without derailing this thread anymore, the new online clothing contracts that ADM (Mat) is working on should eliminate ever having to go to clothing stores to get yearly entitlements of t-shirts and underwear.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Jul 2022)

FSTO said:


> But …….. I WANT IT ALLLLLLL!!!!


OK Ephialtes you know what happened when you last said that! 

FWIW as a retired member I can say I really dislike the way the CAF appears to be tearing itself apart over this.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Honestly, this thread has descended into the "I miss the back in the day where people conformed to our standards" camp and the "This isn't a big deal, let it go" camp.
> Both are at an impasse and both are adamant they're right. Other than that synopsis, you're not going to have a good time on the other 36 pages of this thread.


I think you nailed it once more. The right answer is somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Jul 2022)

dangerboy said:


> Without derailing this thread anymore, the new online clothing contracts that ADM (Mat) is working on should eliminate ever having to go to clothing stores to get yearly entitlements of t-shirts and underwear.



Some things we do just make sense.


----------



## Weinie (11 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> I think you nailed it once more. The right answer is somewhere in the middle.


Or the right answer (for the CAF) will only reveal itself in 10-15 years.


----------



## KevinB (11 Jul 2022)

PMedMoe said:


> I'm only skimming the posts here because I really couldn't care less, but it's so _nice_ to know I might have a MH problem because I have tattoos, piercings and have coloured my hair.


We knew that already about you.  I mean anyone wanting to be a PMed is clearly imbalanced


----------



## lenaitch (11 Jul 2022)

ueo said:


> Oakes Test? Olease define in a few words.


It's a benchmark SCOC ruling (handed down in R. vs Oakes in 1986) to guide courts on how to apply the 'reasonable limits' provision is Section 1 of the Charter:

1. The _Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms_ guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.​​I won't try to summarize, so here is a quick analysis (there are many online, some more in depth):









						Oakes Test - Centre for Constitutional Studies
					

The Oakes test was created by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1986 case of R v Oakes.  The test interprets section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that rights are guaranteed, “subject only to such reasonable limits . . .




					www.constitutionalstudies.ca
				




In the context of this thread, it has been mentioned in relation to Section 2(b), Freedom of Expression.  I'm not convinced matters of appearance fall under 'expression'.  If it isn't a protected right, then the courts don't get to determine if it can be reasonably limited by the State.  All my opinion only.


----------



## KevinB (11 Jul 2022)

dangerboy said:


> Without derailing this thread anymore, the new online clothing contracts that ADM (Mat) is working on should eliminate ever having to go to clothing stores to get yearly entitlements of t-shirts and underwear


Entirely irrelevant to the thread but my last pair of CF issued underwear (from probably 2002 ish) finally lost its waistline elastic ability.  

Honestly they lasted longer than MEC underwear and a bunch of fairly high end underwear.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jul 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Again, it's not my job to support someone else's position.
> 
> So far all anyone has provided is opinions, anecdotal points and go for search for yourself and don't use google.
> 
> Sounds to me like more scared of change folks grasping at straws to rail against what they don't like and understand.



There isn't always a black and while way mental health manifests itself in terms of symptoms.

For example someone with borderline personality disorder:

National Institute of Mental Health


> People with borderline personality disorder  may experience intense mood swings and feel uncertainty about how they see  themselves.[I need bright blue hair today!] Their feelings for others can change quickly, and swing from  extreme closeness to extreme dislike. These changing feelings can lead to unstable relationships and emotional pain.
> 
> People with borderline personality disorder  also tend to* view things in extremes*, such as all good or all bad.[I need to shave my head/do a crazy haircut!] Their interests and values can change quickly, and they may *act impulsively* or recklessly.[I changed my mind I'm dying it back. Next week, another drastic chang





> > Other signs or symptoms may include:
> >
> > Efforts to avoid real or perceived abandonment, such as plunging headfirst into relationships—or  ending them just as quickly.
> > A pattern of intense and unstable relationships with family, friends, and loved ones.
> > ...


So it could be a sign of deeper mental health issues, or someone could just enjoy dying their hair.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Do you menstruate? Do you have a uterus? A vagina? ovaries?


Except Trans women don't menstruate, have a uterus, and have ovaries. Do they still get the underwear claim?


----------



## PMedMoe (11 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> We knew that already about you.  I mean anyone wanting to be a PMed is clearly imbalanced



Retired now and not working in the field at all.


----------



## btrudy (11 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Studies, synopses, and discussions are easy to find with web searches.  Much of it seems equivocal to me; it almost all leans the same way so I doubt it's all wrong.  Behaviours typically mentioned are risk-taking and attention-seeking, along with greater likelihood of having some kind of mental health diagnosis (which is broad but still not meaningless).  Expect to find lower rates as time passes and more people indulge in body art.  Obviously some kinds of body art are markers intended to signal membership in a tribe.



Again, wearing your hair the way you want it isn't the same thing as "attention seeking behaviour".

Honestly, I think your problem is that you're making this all about you. You're viewing everything through the lens of *how you'll react to someone's hair. *People aren't trying to get a rise out of you by dying their hair. They're not seeking attention. *They just like it better that way.*

Having a preference for the way you look is not unusual. Literally everyone likes to be able to style their hair a certain way. The only difference now is that almost everyone will actually be allowed to style their hair the way they prefer it, as opposed to before where it was only a subset of CAF members whose preferred hair styling fell within the regulations.

I rather get the impression that a lot of people here, including yourself Mr. Sallows, were lucky enough to have preferences that were previously allowed. The fact that you did style your hair that was, in accordance with your preferences was nice for you. Now do us all a favour and let the rest of us enjoy the same privilege now that the range of what it allowed has opened up to include our preferred hair styles.

Someone who likes having a pony tail or rainbow hair deciding to wear a pony tail or rainbow hair is no more "attention seeking" than someone who preferred  "#2 on the sides and about 2 inches on the top" who decided to wear "#2 on the sides and about 2 inches on the top". It's not indicative of mental illness or a lack of dedication to the institution or any of those other insults that have been cast around to have preferences that didn't suit the restrictive 50s era regulations we previously had in place.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (11 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Except Trans women don't menstruate, have a uterus, and have ovaries. Do they still get the underwear claim?


Read the language of the CANFORGEN and the answer is right there. Para 1 sub paras b and c. 

If you menstruate and require leakproof undergarments,  you get the allowance.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Jul 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I think this is really the thing; maintaining long hair, fancy beards, hair dye, nails etc takes time and effort. If you are rocking an office job, you do you.
> 
> If you have time to do all of this while deployed, you probably aren't pulling your weight, or your deployment job could maybe be done from Canada. I suspect most people will have an 'office standard' then put their game face on because they just can't be arsed on deployment.


From my own experience the people I met that were worried about this stuff weren't operators or in line units.  Nobody that stands watches, works outside the wire, etc is going to have time to even think about.

Caring about this is for the REMFs 😉



Navy_Pete said:


> This will be an interesting one for OUTCAN posting; suspect a lot of them will just follow local dress standards for grooming, at least for things like requiring a natural hair colour.


"For OPERATIONAL/SECURITY reasons, your dress and deportment will conform to the following standards" 😉



Jarnhamar said:


> Except Trans women don't menstruate, have a uterus, and have ovaries. Do they still get the underwear claim?


How do you know?  😁


----------



## Weinie (11 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> *I rather get the impression that a lot of people here, including yourself Mr. Sallows, were lucky enough to have preferences that were previously allowed. *The fact that you did style your hair that was, in accordance with your preferences was nice for you. Now do us all a favour and let the rest of us enjoy the same privilege now that the range of what it allowed has opened up to include our preferred hair styles.


Mmmmmmmmm. I am not sure that I would refer to (us old folks) hairstyles/facial hair as preferences. They were standards, that were enforced to ensure uniformity across the CAF. There were no privileges/exceptions, unless you were a pioneer, or had a chit. 

Your constant disparaging of the way some have reacted, is counter-balanced/negated by your position of their (our) apparent small-mindedness. Freedom of expression includes freedom of opinion.

I have no dog (or tattoo/coloured hair) in the fight. In the end, it will come down to the impact on the Op effectiveness. I suspect, that both sides have some very valid points.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Read the language of the CANFORGEN and the answer is right there. Para 1 sub paras b and c.
> 
> If you menstruate and require leakproof undergarments,  you get the allowance.


Nice. I'm glad the military is doing more and more initiatives like this to support service members. Seen a CANFORGEN today that reinburst members for some kind of device to pee with PPE on, something like that.


----------



## btrudy (11 Jul 2022)

Weinie said:


> Mmmmmmmmm. I am not sure that I would refer to (us old folks) hairstyles/facial hair as preferences. They were standards, that were enforced to ensure uniformity across the CAF. There were no privileges/exceptions, unless you were a pioneer, or had a chit.



Everyone has a preference. Everyone has some style of hair cut they like the best (which can of course change at times).

The standards went from "shave it bald, everything goes" to "15 cm of length and up to 4 cm inches of bulk". And a lot of people's "ideal" preferred hair cut fell well within those parameters. And thus they've been lucky enough to just be able to go about their time in the CAF, wearing their ideal hair cut without any problems. Because they had an overlap between their preferences and the standards.

And not everyone was so lucky. Some people want hair that's coloured differently than allowed. Some people want hair that's longer than that. Etc.

But simply wearing your hair the way you want is not indicative of any mental illness, "attention seeing behaviour", or any of the other insulting assertions that have been constantly thrown about on this thread; dudes who like their hair shaved, and thus chose to shave their head aren't doing so because they're crazy; they're doing so because that's what they like, and they're allowed to do it.

How is it any different for coloured hair or longer hair?


----------



## Kilted (11 Jul 2022)

I'm pretty sure that the sky is falling at this point.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jul 2022)

> You're viewing everything through the lens of *how you'll react to someone's hair.*



You're viewing this as if you think my interest is about my reaction to someone's hair.  It's not.

In a general all-out war, the CAF has to be able to usefully train and employ just about everyone available who is capable of some sort of useful service.  Conscription might even be thought necessary.

Well short of general all-out war, the CAF is very small relative to the population from which it draws and does not - as a matter of military necessity - need to worry about whether some people are excluded from consideration, or exclude themselves.   Whether or not inclusion is a matter of constitutional necessity is an entirely separate question and can be taken up as such.

Policies restricting self-expression are one way of discouraging the fraction of people whose propensity to serve themselves is extreme.


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Jul 2022)

WTF ever happened to "the CAF does not owe you a job"? Don't want to wear booty shorts? Don't apply to Hooters. Don't want to cut your hair? Don't join the CAF. Bread and circuses.


----------



## Kilted (11 Jul 2022)

Hey, maybe it won't be all bad.  Maybe everyone will just follow the trend of looking like the cast of Vikings.  At least we will all look scarier than we actually are.


----------



## btrudy (11 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> You're viewing this as if you think my interest is about my reaction to someone's hair.  It's not.
> 
> In a general all-out war, the CAF has to be able to usefully train and employ just about everyone available who is capable of some sort of useful service.  Conscription might even be thought necessary.
> 
> ...



Now I'm convinced you're being deliberately obtuse.

Tell me, if the rules were changed to mandate and neon green reverse-mohawks, would you be perfectly happy about adhering to that change? Be honest now.

If doing that would irk you, then you're just as guilty as anyone else of desiring your own self-expression regarding your hair. You just happen to want hair that was already allowed.

Desiring hair that is not currently allowed but will be in Sept is not indicative of a "propensity to serve themselves". It's indicative of a difference in aesthetic preferences. That's all.

*Wanting purple hair because you like purple hair is no more selfish or self-serving than wanting brown hair because you like brown hair.* Literally the only difference is that one of those is currently allowed and one won't be allowed until Sept.




Kat Stevens said:


> WTF ever happened to "the CAF does not owe you a job"? Don't want to wear booty shorts? Don't apply to Hooters. Don't want to cut your hair? Don't join the CAF. Bread and circuses.



We decided that driving people out because they don't want to adhere to completely arbitrary rules isn't reasonable or beneficial?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (11 Jul 2022)

@Mods,

I think we have all said our piece. This is devolving into personal attacks and has circled the bowl twice already. Can we lock this?


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> Now I'm convinced you're being deliberately obtuse.
> 
> Tell me, if the rules were changed to mandate and neon green reverse-mohawks, would you be perfectly happy about adhering to that change? Be honest now.
> 
> ...


Neither is pumping up every fringe group's tires with moves like this, when the real problems are beans, boots, and bullets. You make a military by making it capable, not by sleight of hand and bribery.


----------



## mariomike (11 Jul 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> ; suspect a lot of them will just follow local dress standards for grooming, at least for things like requiring a natural hair colour.



Last time I was in Japan - as a tourist - they still had a pretty strict tattoo policy.


----------



## QV (11 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> Now I'm convinced you're being deliberately obtuse.
> 
> Tell me, if the rules were changed to mandate and neon green reverse-mohawks, would you be perfectly happy about adhering to that change? Be honest now.
> 
> ...


You realize the reason for short hair was for hygiene purposes so disease and parasites weren't passed around...and not because some dudes liked short hair, right?


----------



## btrudy (11 Jul 2022)

QV said:


> You realize the reason for short hair was for hygiene purposes so disease and parasites weren't passed around...and not because some dudes liked short hair, right?



And yet somehow women have managed for decades, I'm sure the dudes will figure it out too.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jul 2022)

Me wearing my hair the way I liked it.  (It's well below collar).


----------



## Remius (11 Jul 2022)

QV said:


> You realize the reason for short hair was for hygiene purposes so disease and parasites weren't passed around...and not because some dudes liked short hair, right?


Back in the day when hygiene was a problem.  And not just in the field. 

They also used powdered wigs at one time for the same purpose.


----------



## QV (11 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> And yet somehow women have managed for decades, I'm sure the dudes will figure it out too.


Fairly sure, if met with the conditions I mentioned, the woman would be cutting that hair off too.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jul 2022)

Weinie said:


> Freedom of expression includes freedom of opinion.


I'm not so sure anymore. The CAF is being infiltrated by this mentality where "you have the right to your own opinion, as long as it's aligned with mine". And if it's not aligned then you're attacked by someone waving a stick in one hand and their victim card in another.

_I'm a victim because I couldn't wear my hair how I want. It's an attack against my identity! Call the HRC! _
No, relax, it was just a dress code. Lots of jobs had them, lots of jobs still do.


----------



## Kilted (11 Jul 2022)

Hey if the 4077 survived having a soldier in a dress, we might be able to too.


----------



## Weinie (11 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> Everyone has a preference. Everyone has some style of hair cut they like the best (which can of course change at times).
> 
> The standards went from "shave it bald, everything goes" to "15 cm of length and up to 4 cm inches of bulk". And a lot of people's "ideal" preferred hair cut fell well within those parameters. And thus they've been lucky enough to just be able to go about their time in the CAF, wearing their ideal hair cut without any problems. Because they had an overlap between their preferences and the standards.
> 
> ...


I actually stated that there was validity on both sides. Please re-read my post. There are varied generations/opinions on this site, which I personally have found both insightful,useless, and alarming, according to my preferences/opinions. When someone destroys my opinion, I crawl away and lick my wounds. Therefore, I am much more selective on the hill to die on. Your preference may vary.


----------



## Navy_Pete (11 Jul 2022)

SO cool, we'll have some people still doing multiple jobs and trying to make miracles happen, but with bright coloured hair and different fashions.

Literal makeup on the proverbial pig; still stepping in a big shitpile.

The CAF is collectively delusional if they think this will keep the institutional wheels from falling off further.


----------



## Quirky (11 Jul 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> The CAF is collectively delusional if they think this will keep the institutional wheels from falling off further.



The important issues are hard to fix. Also treasury board. They run the CAF.


----------



## Kilted (11 Jul 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> SO cool, we'll have some people still doing multiple jobs and trying to make miracles happen, but with bright coloured hair and different fashions.
> 
> Literal makeup on the proverbial pig; still stepping in a big shitpile.
> 
> The CAF is collectively delusional if they think this will keep the institutional wheels from falling off further.


Someone having pink hair might not push those wheels further off, but the internal conflict that it is causing might.  I'm just wondering which former CDS will be the one playing the fiddle as Rome metaphorically burns.


----------



## btrudy (11 Jul 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> SO cool, we'll have some people still doing multiple jobs and trying to make miracles happen, but with bright coloured hair and different fashions.
> 
> Literal makeup on the proverbial pig; still stepping in a big shitpile.
> 
> The CAF is collectively delusional if they think this will keep the institutional wheels from falling off further.



It was intended primarily as an equity initiative. If it helps a little bit with retention or recruitment, that'd be great, but that was not the primary purpose.


----------



## Furniture (11 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> Someone having pink hair might not push those wheels further off, but the internal conflict that it is causing might.  I'm just wondering which former CDS will be the one playing the fiddle as Rome metaphorically burns.


At the same time, someone picking up the slack by doing three jobs might hang on a bit longer because there are a couple less arbitrary rules to follow.

People dismiss the minor dissatisfiers because alone they are minor, but over time, as they accumulate, they become major. Removing unnecessary dissatisfiers slightly lightens the load, and maybe convinces people to hang on a bit longer, so the big stuff can get sorted.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> If they're posted to an operational theatre where there's a threat, they'll put the scarf on (I'm sure most will simply decide to dye a subdued colour instead). If you're talking about something happening where you go from zero to armed, well putting the scarf on takes a hell of a lot less effort than issuing everyone firearms. Friendo can take the 45 seconds to throw their hair scarf on while in line waiting for ammo.



I am willing to wager some operational stuff will require natural hair colours not a scarf.  Not all but some.   Bright coloured hair in the desert or tree line can get that mbr and those around them killed.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jul 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Personally, I don't think the CAF is seen as a very serious organization anymore by our partners or the general population but the CAF can be whatever it wants to be.



100%

Instead of showing up with with 2 Auroras that will break down during the Ex, we will show up with 2 Auroras that will break down during the Ex  AND have a a few people with hair like Ronald MacDonald…and a few in the same physical condition Grimace is 😁


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> 100%
> 
> Instead of showing up with with 2 Auroras that will break down during the Ex, we will show up with 2 Auroras that will break down during the Ex  AND have a a few people with hair like Ronald MacDonald…and a few in the same physical condition Grimace is 😁


Yep,

I'm at a new job right now with around 30 other people in my training class.  Literally nobody is dressed like a goof ball, kind of refreshing 😉


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> So you're saying that if I was to walk into Toronto today (or realistically six weeks from now when I could actually get an appointment), they would give me new underwear without having to turn the old ones or listen to a bunch of other excuses why they couldn't give it to me?



I walk into Wing Supply every summer when my calendar reminder tells me “it’s time” for my T shirts, issued gitches and 4 pair of light and heavy weight long underwear.  No questions asked other than “service number” and “what size”.  No proving anything or silliness; it’s part of my SOI.


----------



## Navy_Pete (11 Jul 2022)

Furniture said:


> At the same time, someone picking up the slack by doing three jobs might hang on a bit longer because there are a couple less arbitrary rules to follow.
> 
> People dismiss the minor dissatisfiers because alone they are minor, but over time, as they accumulate, they become major. Removing unnecessary dissatisfiers slightly lightens the load, and maybe convinces people to hang on a bit longer, so the big stuff can get sorted.


Like PLD, cost of living, overly aggressive op scheds?

We are doing SFA about the big items either and I'm tired of hanging around waiting. At this point I'm here out of spite because I don't want to let the system win, but it's apathy is overwhelming my GAF.

I think the flipside of these minor items is it highlights how little we are actually doing to address things that matter; the items that have been a major worry for over a decade are worse than ever, so colour me dis-fucking-satisfied with some housekeeping on D&D.

Glad this makes a few people happy I'll just go back to my box of hoping the RCN doesn't kill people sending them to sea in ships TC would require repairs to meet basic commercial standards (for cargo ships). Don't worry though they are fully crewed.... er operating with restrictions er.... covered with robust risk mitigations... well fuck.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jul 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Yep,
> 
> I'm at a new job right now with around 30 other people in my training class.  Literally nobody is dressed like a goof ball, kind of refreshing 😉



Happy retirement!  I’d love to be watching from the side some days…


----------



## Furniture (11 Jul 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Like PLD, cost of living, overly aggressive op scheds?
> 
> We are doing SFA about the big items either and I'm tired of hanging around waiting. At this point I'm here out of spite because I don't want to let the system win, but it's apathy is overwhelming my GAF.
> 
> ...


Are we doing SFA about those things, or are they being worked on behind the scenes? Last I heard the CAF and TB were working on the PLD and pay issue. Previously the TB backed out of negotiations because too much was leaked, and the government wasn't happy. 

The RCAF is trialing a whole new pay system based on occupation as we speak, if it's a success I suspect it will be rolled out to a broader range of CAF occupations.  

The Op Sched, and maintenance issues are entirely RCN issues, so the CAF dress committee members aren't really having an impact on that... 

Everybody has big issues to deal with, that doesn't mean we should drop everything else and only focus on the big issues. Right now all the bandwidth for OT&E in my occupation is directed at one problem. We have 20 other things that need replacing, things that could have been done long ago, but all the effort was focused solely on the "big" thing. Now we don't have the big problem sorted, and have 20 other problems getting bigger... Sometimes splitting the effort a bit, and getting some of the smaller problems off the table is required. 

Dress is a small problem, but one that the CAF can fix all on it's own. It's now a small problem that is off the table, so that some people can pick away at the next small problem, while the big problems get sorted over the next several years. Unless you really believe nobody is looking at the issues you mentioned?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jul 2022)

I am on the fence about the hair colour aspect some as I think it’s too broad.   I have a hard time convincing myself My Little Pony hairstyles will “bring credit to the CAF”.

But discussing this with a peer a few months ago after some details were passed at the WCWO Council, they said “what if my kid has cancer and wants the family to all dye their hair or something for unity.   I couldn’t do it right now”. 

Dress regs will be like the Weed rules;  if you’re operational, OUTCAN, forget weed.   The senior leadership has to assume the risk for any negative outcomes to this change.  Therefore I suspect any restrictions will be well thought out, justified and reviewed by all the SMEs they should be (legal comes to mind).

I am still more concerned the techs working on the 40+year old aircraft I am part of the testing crew for this week can legally get mind-fucked on weed 25 hours before turning wrenches than I am they might go for a hairstyle like Lagertha or Floki…

Or, that we have 40+ year old aircraft that there is no plan to replace yet…


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jul 2022)

Furniture said:


> Are we doing SFA about those things, or are they being worked on behind the scenes? Last I heard the CAF and TB were working on the PLD and pay issue. Previously the TB backed out of negotiations because too much was leaked, and the government wasn't happy.
> 
> The RCAF is trialing a whole new pay system based on occupation as we speak, if it's a success I suspect it will be rolled out to a broader range of CAF occupations.
> 
> ...



PLD is being worked on/looked at.  No solid details but it is being looked at; no one who has info is likely going to post them here (I won’t).


----------



## Navy_Pete (11 Jul 2022)

Furniture said:


> Are we doing SFA about those things, or are they being worked on behind the scenes? Last I heard the CAF and TB were working on the PLD and pay issue. Previously the TB backed out of negotiations because too much was leaked, and the government wasn't happy.


I've heard that for years. We aren't an effort based institution.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jul 2022)

As long as the public and media are focused on dress change stuff, they’ll stop thinking about the fighter file, (non) FWSAR, JSS, tanks and APCs and stuff.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jul 2022)

@btrudy

I hope you don’t mind an observation.  You talk about things like respecting the dignity of all, protection of freedom of expression under the Charter.   Good points and relevant to the discussion.

However when anyone exercises their freedom of expression and opinion contrary to your own personal ones, you use words like bigot or say they should consider leaving the CAF (not the exact words but certainly was the message).

You have to walk the walk;  debating the way you do detracts from credibility and consideration of your points because of the “double-standard stuff”.

*“You have to respect the dignity of people and their freedom of expression you bigot!”*

Doesn’t really add up if you’re honest about it, does it.


----------



## btrudy (11 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> @btrudy
> 
> I hope you don’t mind an observation.  You talk about things like respecting the dignity of all, protection of freedom of expression under the Charter.   Good points and relevant to the discussion.
> 
> ...


That'd be the Paradox of tolerance at work, now wouldn't it? 

When someone's literally saying that we shouldn't bother recruiting trans people, because they come with too much baggage.... well, that is a clearly transphobic viewpoint, that should not be tolerated. 

Because the one thing that'll destroy the concept of respecting the dignity of others? Ignoring it when people are not doing so. 

Being a transphobe (or any other form of bigotry while we're at it), is not after all a protected class under the charter. I'm under no obligation, legally or morally to consider that to be a legitimate viewpoint worthy of respect. It, by its very nature, is indeed inherently disrespectful, and I'm morally obligated to treat it as such.


----------



## Kilted (11 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> That'd be the Paradox of tolerance at work, now wouldn't it?
> 
> When someone's literally saying that we shouldn't bother recruiting trans people, because they come with too much baggage.... well, that is a clearly transphobic viewpoint, that should not be tolerated.
> 
> ...


Well, in our private capacities, we are not subject to the Charter, so we are free to disagree with any opinion and have no obligation to respect the view of any type of protected class.


----------



## Remius (11 Jul 2022)

Furniture said:


> Are we doing SFA about those things, or are they being worked on behind the scenes? Last I heard the CAF and TB were working on the PLD and pay issue. Previously the TB backed out of negotiations because too much was leaked, and the government wasn't happy.
> 
> The RCAF is trialing a whole new pay system based on occupation as we speak, if it's a success I suspect it will be rolled out to a broader range of CAF occupations.
> 
> ...


I agree with all of this.

We can walk and chew gum.  But it would be nice to get a fresh piece of gum from time to time lol.


----------



## btrudy (11 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> Well, in our private capacities, we are not subject to the Charter, so we are free to disagree with any opinion and have no obligation to respect the view of any type of protected class.



There is no such thing as "in our private capacities" when it comes to hateful conduct.


----------



## Kilted (11 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> I agree with all of this.
> 
> We can walk and chew gum.  But it would be nice to get a fresh piece of gum from time to time lol.


Are we, the information that came out about chewing gum in uniform was somewhat confusing.


----------



## Kilted (11 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> There is no such thing as "in our private capacities" when it comes to hateful conduct.


Disagreeing with an opinion is not hateful conduct.


----------



## Weinie (11 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I walk into Wing Supply every summer when my calendar reminder tells me “it’s time” for my T shirts, issued gitches and 4 pair of light and heavy weight long underwear.  No questions asked other than “service number” and “what size”.  No proving anything or silliness; it’s part of my SOI.


Luxury. (and I won't even post the Yorkshiremen.)


----------



## btrudy (11 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> Disagreeing with an opinion is not hateful conduct.



When said opinion was "trans people should be afforded the same rights and opportunities as everyone else", yes, it is. 

There is no friendly difference of opinions when it comes to whether or not certain people deserve basic human rights.


----------



## Weinie (11 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I am on the fence about the hair colour aspect some as I think it’s too broad.   I have a hard time convincing myself My Little Pony hairstyles will “bring credit to the CAF”.
> 
> But discussing this with a peer a few months ago after some details were passed at the WCWO Council, they said “what if my kid has cancer and wants the family to all dye their hair or something for unity.   I couldn’t do it right now”.
> 
> ...


All of the above. 

But asking sr leadership to assume risk, IMO, is a bridge too far. Many of them are already looking over their shoulders, wondering, "Am I next." By somewhat cleaning up the system in the last two years, we have created a whole new constraint.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> When someone's literally saying that we shouldn't bother recruiting trans people, because they come with too much baggage.... well, that is a clearly transphobic viewpoint, that should not be tolerated.



Incorrect.

Oxford dictionary says transphobic is


> having or showing dislike towards trans people, or treating them unfairly



He doesn't dislike trans people. He's forming an opinion based on numeric value observations.

Pilots, generals, DHTC assaultes are "worth more" than infantry privates.

If the recruiting/medical/resource cost of training 1x trans member (or whoever) is equal to training 20x infantry members then it's not a hate crime to have an opinion that training the 20x members is more economical or more worth while.



EITS hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Kilted (11 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> When said opinion was "trans people should be afforded the same rights and opportunities as everyone else", yes, it is.
> 
> There is no friendly difference of opinions when it comes to whether or not certain people deserve basic human rights.


Well, that's a little bit of a loaded situation and not where I was directed my comment.  Yes, anyone advocating taking charter rights away from a specific group would meet the grounds for hateful conduct.  It is also completely possible to disagree with the way someone acts or the way that someone believes about something without hating them.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> There is no such thing as "in our private capacities" when it comes to hateful conduct.



You don’t get to decide that. 


btrudy said:


> That'd be the Paradox of tolerance at work, now wouldn't it?
> 
> When someone's literally saying that we shouldn't bother recruiting trans people, because they come with too much baggage.... well, that is a clearly transphobic viewpoint, that should not be tolerated.
> 
> ...



So while debating inclusion, respecting others…you feel justified in doing the opposite.

Jarnhamer simply pointed out a large % of the CAF is CISHET or whatever the acronym is. You basically said you’re a bigot and should leave the CAF.    You’re seriously going to try to defend that?  I think many people would have more respect for you and your opinion if you had the courage to say “that was over the line, sorry”.  I’ve had to suck it in and apologize on this forum more than once and I’d like to think I was thought better of for it.  

Like I said, credibility and all that…


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> There is no such thing as "in our private capacities" when it comes to hateful conduct.



Is calling someone names or labelling people _unhateful_ conduct?


----------



## btrudy (11 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> You don’t get to decide that.
> 
> 
> So while debating inclusion, respecting others…you feel justified in doing the opposite.
> ...



Credibility? How about "don't pass a fault"? Aren't we professionally obligated to be calling out unacceptable behaviour?

Bigotry has no place in the CAF, and I'll be damned if I'm going to refrain from using the word just because it makes bigots and their pals feel bad about themselves when they do. You're_ supposed to feel shame_ when you do shameful things.

The point of respecting others is respecting them for who they are.

The things they choose to do, on the other hand, you're allowed to judge them on that. Bigotry is a choice. Choosing to express bigotry, be it in the workplace or online is likewise also a choice. I'll judge people who choose to express hatred, just as I'll judge people who choose to assault others, or drink on the job, or harass people in the workplace, or invade Ukraine.

Unacceptable behaviour should be called out. And expressing bigotry is unacceptable.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jul 2022)

And that what I am not doing; passing yours.

My mom used to say “2 wrongs don’t make a right”.

“…at all times / places”.  There’s a shall in there too.   We don’t get to edit the policy to support our personal stances or opinions.


----------



## btrudy (11 Jul 2022)

Agree to disagree then I guess, I refuse to refrain from calling out bigotry for what it is.

2 wrongs don't make a right, but I strongly believe I'm in the right here.


----------



## Weinie (11 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> That'd be the Paradox of tolerance at work, now wouldn't it?
> 
> When someone's literally saying that we shouldn't bother recruiting trans people, because they come with too much baggage.... well, that is a clearly transphobic viewpoint, that should not be tolerated.
> 
> ...


Tolerant: showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

Tolerance: the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

I think we have all been tolerant, to some extent, of the opinions that have been listed on this forum.

Tolerance may be a bridge too far, for some folks on both sides of the  equation.

And in rebuttal of your Paradox of Tolerance. The same site lists an article that completely disputes your citation.

Balance theory - Wikipedia


----------



## btrudy (11 Jul 2022)

I can tolerate a lot of differences of opinion.

People would prefer that short hair be mandated for men? Fine by me. 

People love military parades? Groovy.

People think purple hair is unprofessional? That's just, like, your opinion man. 

People think it's perfectly reasonable to call everyone else in the Navy "shipmate" like we're damned Americans? Ugh... fine. You do you (I sure as hell ain't saying it back though!)

People wish they'd bring back the beer fridges in the main cave? Understandable.

Bigotry? Oh hell naw. That is indeed my bridge too far. 



Weinie said:


> And in rebuttal of your Paradox of Tolerance. The same site lists an article that completely disputes your citation.
> 
> Balance theory - Wikipedia



Honestly, I don't really think that either article "disputes" what I've been saying. At best it describes the impact that trying to ensure that the Paradox of Tolerance doesn't take root would have on those who are fighting against intolerance. Doing so might be alienating. That's fine. I'm not exactly here seeking approval.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> The only people discriminated against by uniform design were women, the 1980's skirts and bowler hats were quite bad. I also be blunt and say that the majority of trans people I have met are not worth the logistical and mental health costs to actively recruit.




@btrudy

This is, I’m assuming, the post CP made that you saw as bigotry.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but while the wording might be “rough” to you/some, I see a valid concern as a taxpayer and CAF member who exists in a highly operational focused world.

Health requirements - if they are higher than average for trans mbrs and detracts from their employability and deployability, that is a legitimate consideration that directly impacts or has the potential to directly impact the CAFs ability to carry out assigned missions; domestic and international.  That is why we have recruits medical category requirements, PCATs and medical releases for people who can’t meet minimum requirements for UoS.

I’ve attached a screenshot of Jarnhamers post that you quoted and your reply.

He simply gave a stat in reply to something else you’d said;  “get out of the CAF bigot and take your kind with you”.   🤷🏻‍♂️


----------



## Weinie (12 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> Honestly, I don't really think that either article "disputes" what I've been saying. At best it describes the impact that trying to ensure that the Paradox of Tolerance doesn't take root would have on those who are fighting against intolerance. *Doing so might be alienating. That's fine. I'm not exactly here seeking approval.*


Yes, but you still must be mindful of discussion and differing opinions, which is what this site is all about.


----------



## btrudy (12 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> This is, I’m assuming, the post CP made that you saw as bigotry.


The one I'm most irate about was this one:


Colin Parkinson said:


> The only people discriminated against by uniform design were women, the 1980's skirts and bowler hats were quite bad. I also be blunt and say that the majority of trans people I have met are not worth the logistical and mental health costs to actively recruit.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jul 2022)

We’ll see how this works out in a shooting war. I reckon most folks will adopt a more moderate operational dress code, shorter hair, clean shaven (CBRN), etc. 

Stop fucking arguing and get on with it FFS.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Jul 2022)

A set of dress regulations was not designed to discriminate against transsexuals.  I suppose it's finitely possible that there's a document somewhere in which someone states that dress regulations should discriminate against transsexuals, but I'd have to see a transcription to believe that.

Media and other public fora are full of discussions about the mental/emotional problems of trans folk, including opinions of people who claim to be or have been trans.  It's disrespectful to sweep that under the carpet, dismiss it as illegitimate, or pretend that if we just play along with things in one particular direction, all will be well.  People with difficulties are not a means to serve the agendas of others.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jul 2022)

I honestly don’t think many trans people will be swayed to join.


----------



## CBH99 (12 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> The one I'm most irate about was this one:


Genuinely curious as someone who is just catching up on the various threads - what was it about either of those posts that made you irate?

_Sincere question - one can only learn/grow if their mind is open to it, so I try to make sure mine always is_


----------



## ArmyRick (12 Jul 2022)

@btrudy 
Dude, you need to open your mind to what people are saying. I will be blunt, your very close minded and hell bent on your views. Take my advice or ignore this former old infantry WO, your choice and based on my experiences, could be at your peril.

Have you noticed your comments have almost or basically NO likes? Should be a clue. And the crowd here at army.ca is both left, right, center, liberal, conservative, new thinking, old fuddy duddy, etc. We have all of the spectrum of personalities here. 

Right now, your standing on your soap box and telling everyone to share your views or your a bigot/racist/homophobe/transphobe, etc. Not on. At all. If your doing it here, are you shoving your views on others in life too? I hope not. 

What your doing is why no one takes the "woke" movement seriously. There is being compassionate, tolerant, accepting and open minded that anyone can adopt and use said traits. And there is also the ability to formulate your own opinion without being hateful, vengeful or in spite of others. We can agree to disagree. Get it yet? Or am I just another privileged white "CIS" male who opinion is so outdated and not worth yours?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (12 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> The one I'm most irate about was this one:


@btrudy 

I agree the statement was in poor taste and rather blunt. I don’t think it was meant to be malicious, most likely a case of "foot in mouth." Ignorance is not intolerance.

In every case, we have the option of enlightening folks (I.e. "actually, the needs of Trans folk are no more than XYZ group...") or we can call them out on their opinion being bunk (" yeah... unless you can back your opinion with fact, you're kind of being an ass.") 

Attacking a person, calling them a bigot, and doubling down on it doesn't inform them of why you found their opinion harmful or upsetting. 

Even then, some people just can't be reached. Some people don't listen to reason and some people just don't give a shit. Trying to argue your point with them is like trying to administer medicine to the dead. 

@Colin Parkinson  made a blunt, off handed comment, and I dont agree with what he said. I also am grateful that hisbpersonal opinion is not what governs CAF Recruitment. He shared his thoughts, they're bunk from where I'm sitting (frankly), but he can hold them dear to his heart all he wants as he no longer serves the CAF. 

Not everyone will share your opinion. Not everyone will be beholden to the same values, ethics, and ethos (or their interpretation) as us Trusted to Serve. At the end of the day, we're here to share opinions and thoughts. Some of which are from folks nowhere near the CSD or other regulations we have within the CAF. 

If you find issues or are offended by something said, you can address the statement, contact a Mod, or you can ignore it. Keeping the argument going over multiple pages gets us nowhere.


----------



## lenaitch (12 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> There is no such thing as "in our private capacities" when it comes to hateful conduct.



Personal comments and views are not hateful unless they fall under the 'hate speech' provisions of the Criminal Code.
Comments and views are not conduct.
Personal grooming and appearance isn't Charter protected (at least not to my understanding)
Personal comments and views _are_ Charter protected unless they cross a very few legally-defined lines.
The Charter binds the State and its agencies but it doesn't bind individual citizens acting in their own capacity.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Jul 2022)

I stand by my statement that we should not be actively recruiting Trans people. By all means if they happen to apply they should have to go through the same process as anyone else. I also point out that I am not alone in my opinion on mental health issues and the papers support what I have seen with my own eyes.








						Suicidality Among Transgender Youth: Elucidating the Role of Interpersonal Risk Factors - PubMed
					

Data indicate that 82% of transgender individuals have considered killing themselves and 40% have attempted suicide, with suicidality highest among transgender youth. Using minority stress theory and the interpersonal theory of suicide, this study aims to better understand suicide risk among...




					pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				












						Intervenable factors associated with suicide risk in transgender persons: a respondent driven sampling study in Ontario, Canada - BMC Public Health
					

Background Across Europe, Canada, and the United States, 22–43 % of transgender (trans) people report a history of suicide attempts. We aimed to identify intervenable factors (related to social inclusion, transphobia, or sex/gender transition) associated with reduced risk of past-year suicide...




					bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com
				




The whole situation is not helped by elementary schools pushing gender exploration unto kids that have not even reached puberty and don't know what they don't know yet. Both my daughters have wannabe Trans friends, and they are a mess, mostly wanting to be special and treated as special. Only one of them seems to really know what they want and act as the gender they wish to be. The others are typically confused kids that have to much crap pushed onto them by the education system and groups hell bent in upping their influence, at the expense of the kids they claim to be helping.


----------



## Quirky (12 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> and they are a mess, mostly wanting to be special and treated as special.



Poor parenting.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Jul 2022)

Quirky said:


> Poor parenting.


A lot of parents here both work full time to stay solvent and they are fighting the education system that jumps onto every bandwagon that comes along, plus determined social media campaigns to push gender exploration onto young kids. Plus as a parent you work with what you get, I have seen bad kids come from good parents and some good kids come from bad parents.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Jul 2022)

Partly a consequence of smaller families (1 of 4 kids less likely to receive much "special" reinforcement than 1 of 2 or an "only"), and older parents (more prone to overprotective behaviour).

Obvious question: why do so many people believe that kids should be given directional reinforcement away from the mean?


----------



## QV (13 Jul 2022)

I came across this article a while back and thought it might have some relevance to this discussion: A retired Marine 3-star general explains 'critical military theory'

_The condition is exacerbated and enabled when the most senior military leaders — those who ought to know better — defer to the idealistic judgments of those whose credentials are either nonexistent or formed entirely by ideology…

To be true to its purpose, the U.S. military cannot be a mirror image of the society it serves.Values that are admirable in civilian society — sensitivity, individuality, compassion, and tolerance for the less capable — are often antithetical to the traits that deter a potential enemy and win the wars that must be fought: Conformity, discipline, unity…

Direct ground combat, of the type we must be prepared to fight, is only waged competently when actions are instinctive, almost irrationally disciplined, and wholly sacrificial when required. Consensus building, deference, and (frankly) softness have their place in polite society, but nothing about intense ground combat is polite — it is often sub-humanly coarse…

There is only one overriding standard for military capability: lethality. Those officeholders who dilute this core truth with civil society’s often appropriate priorities (diversity, gender focus, etc.) undermine the military’s chances of success in combat. Reduced chances for success mean more casualties, which makes defeat more likely. Combat is the harshest meritocracy that exists, and nothing but ruthless adherence to this principle contributes to deterrence and combat effectiveness…_

more at link


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Jul 2022)

I just caught up on the last 9 pages of this thread and I only have one thought/question. 


Why the frig didn't I go to bed an hour ago!?!?


----------



## Bluebulldog (13 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> The one I'm most irate about was this one:



Irate is one thing. 
Being able to have an open and frank conversation about the new standards, and what it does for inclusivity ( or doesn't) shouldn't result in follow on ad-hominem attacks.

Your debate style is unfortunately typical of the "woke" movement. No one holds rational discourse on differing viewpoints anymore, instead choosing to attack the other, or stand on a "woke" soap box, holding forth that one must be right, by virtue of allegedly holding the moral high ground, and those not sharing those opinions are unenlightened, bigots, or both. 

Highlighting ( however bluntly), that the trans population is an extremely small one. And further highlighting that the trans population also suffers from statistically high incidence rates of mental illness...then actively hypothesizing that recruitment might be better focused on more fertile ground is not bigotry. You may not like what has been stated, nor what has been hypothesized, but perhaps holding off on your attempts to "call out", the messenger, instead seeking to inform, or understand how their opinion is informed might be an advisable course of action. 

Of course it's easier to use moral outrage and offense.....as today society lends it so much currency in discussion....


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Jul 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Why the frig didn't I go to bed an hour ago!?!?


Going to bed early should be a basic human right.


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Jul 2022)

QV said:


> I came across this article a while back and thought it might have some relevance to this discussion: A retired Marine 3-star general explains 'critical military theory'
> 
> _The condition is exacerbated and enabled when the most senior military leaders — those who ought to know better — defer to the idealistic judgments of those whose credentials are either nonexistent or formed entirely by ideology…
> 
> ...


Same thing was said when women were allowed into combat roles and then homosexuals were.  Guess what? We didn’t get worse because of it.


----------



## QV (14 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Same thing was said when women were allowed into combat roles and then homosexuals were.  Guess what? We didn’t get worse because of it.


With that statement I‘m not sure the points in the essay were understood.

Since you mentioned it and at the risk of a giant controversial tangent, this Marine Corps study demonstrated coed fighting units performed worse. Before the pitch forks come out; I didn’t write it. But consider why women and mens sports are separate (even professional sports takes winning more seriously). 









						Controversial Marine Corps Study On Gender Integration Published In Full
					

Critics blasted the Marine Corps for not publishing its full study on how gender integration affected combat readiness. NPR obtained the 978-page report.




					www.npr.org


----------



## SupersonicMax (14 Jul 2022)

QV said:


> With that statement I‘m not sure the points in the essay were understood.
> 
> Since you mentioned it and at the risk of a giant controversial tangent, this Marine Corps study demonstrated coed fighting units performed worse. Before the pitch forks come out; I didn’t write it. But consider why women and mens sports are separate (even professional sports takes winning more seriously).
> 
> ...


The experiment was heavily skewed to spotlight areas where women were likely to underperform men and neglected to even look at areas where women were likely to be better at then men. From the report itself:

“This event did not address all potential tasks or missions of all closed MOSs, nor did it address all provisional rifle company tasks that female Marines in open MOSs assigned to previously closed units could perform. Instead, this event focused on what were considered the most physically demanding tasks that Marines could reasonably be expected to perform on a frequent basis. “


----------



## brihard (14 Jul 2022)

I’ll just offer one thought: if hair colour, painted fingernails, or tattoos tangibly impact your unit or team’s discipline, then your unit or team didn’t have discipline to begin with.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Jul 2022)

[





SupersonicMax said:


> The experiment was heavily skewed to spotlight areas where women were likely to underperform men and neglected to even look at areas where women were likely to be better at then men. From the report itself:



Are the areas women are likely to be better than men at. Spoken about in the article (I didn't read it yet).



brihard said:


> I’ll just offer one thought: if hair colour, painted fingernails, or tattoos tangibly impact your unit or team’s discipline, then your unit or team didn’t have discipline to begin with.



It will be a non issue for the combat arms.
A private from a combat arms unit round my parts just got 5 extras for having his hair touching his ears.

We still hammer people for not having ID discs or not having their ID card in their left breast pocket.

Basically wanna merit low this year for promotion? Have some fun with the dress regs.


----------



## Old Sweat (14 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> [
> 
> Are the areas women are likely to be better than men at. Spoken about in the article (I didn't read it yet).
> 
> ...


And for a throw away line I tend to overuse, this is another reason why God invented sergeants.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> [
> 
> 
> We still hammer people for not having ID discs or not having their ID card in their left breast pocket.



"Still?"   Never heard of it in the 80's......

Bring ID disc's for DAG purposes and/or inspections and ID cards in "left breast pocket"?  We'd have probably been shit on for being so stupid as to make it easier to lose.

Weird stuff....


----------



## TCM621 (14 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> I’ll just offer one thought: if hair colour, painted fingernails, or tattoos tangibly impact your unit or team’s discipline, then your unit or team didn’t have discipline to begin with.


I agree. That is why I think this is dangerous.


----------



## brihard (14 Jul 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> "Still?"   Never heard of it in the 80's......
> 
> Bring ID disc's for DAG purposes and/or inspections and ID cards in "left breast pocket"?  We'd have probably been shit on for being so stupid as to make it easier to lose.
> 
> Weird stuff....



Do you want your ID card to go through the laundry twice a week? Because that’s how your ID card goes through the laundry twice a week.


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> Do you want your ID card to go through the laundry twice a week? Because that’s how your ID card goes through the laundry twice a week.



I have no idea where my dog tags are... we only pull them out for WUPs.  

My ID Card stays in my wallet hidden behind my drivers license lol


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Jul 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> My ID Card stays in my wallet hidden behind my drivers license lol


The old _"Drivers liscence? Sure here officer OOOPS I gave you my military ID by mistake"_ trick.


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> The old _"Drivers liscence? Sure here officer OOOPS I gave you my military ID by mistake"_ trick.



I used to leave my tunic hanging in my drivers side window if I was driving through Que.  They always let me go with a warning.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jul 2022)

Occupational requirements must be bona fide.  But they should include atypical situations as well as ordinary ones.  Example: moving "X" from A to B will ordinarily be done as a 2-person lift.  Occasionally a person must be able to do it alone.  Therefore, no-one incapable of the one-person lift meets standard.


----------



## Kilted (14 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> [
> 
> Are the areas women are likely to be better than men at. Spoken about in the article (I didn't read it yet).
> 
> ...


Most people consider me weird for wearing the ID Discs in the first place.  My guess would be a lot of people in my unit don't wear them. It also took me five years to get my first set of ID Discs and Name Tags, so part of that issue might belong to the system as well.

I can't understand why anyone would make you put your ID card in such an unsecured place, it's like they are almost looking for an excuse to charge someone for losing it.

That reminds me of BMQ where we weren't allowed to have anything in our tunic pockets.  We weren't allowed to have our wallets on us, we had to put our ID and health card lose in one of our pockets and carry notebooks and pens in one of the cargo pockets which really helped for drill.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Jul 2022)

Just run of the mill brain washing.

Can you imagine a civilian employee losing 2 and a half weekends seeing their family because their hair slightly touched their ears? And the option to argue meant you become a pariah with a bullseye painted on your back. Finish it off with a looming threat of getting posted and have to uproot your family.


----------



## Furniture (14 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Occupational requirements must be bona fide.  But they should include atypical situations as well as ordinary ones.  Example: moving "X" from A to B will ordinarily be done as a 2-person lift.  Occasionally a person must be able to do it alone.  Therefore, no-one incapable of the one-person lift meets standard.


This is exactly why the new dress regulations are coming out. 

How would purple hair, a goatee, or pink nail polish impact your ability to lift?


----------



## Furniture (14 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Just run of the mill brain washing.
> 
> Can you imagine a civilian employee losing 2 and a half weekends seeing their family because their hair slightly touched their ears? And the option to argue meant you become a pariah with a bullseye painted on your back. Finish it off with a looming threat of getting posted and have to uproot your family.


Yet the CAF wonders why people don't join/stay in...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Jul 2022)

ID in front chest pocket?

The almost 2 decades I wore combats/CADPAT it was there but…in a wallet. That’s how we rolled in Cornwallis and just kept doing it…

Where i work, we have to have our ID and our Restricted Area pass visible walking around and are expected to challenge anyone we see and don’t know that doesn’t have them (which happens).  You can’t even get on that part of the Wing without them.  

ID tags…in my helmet bag as they are required kit for flying.  They go on when I stuff my helmet into it’s place at my station and come off when I stuff my helmet back into the bag.

DAGs, the tasking folks have to physically see and verify your ID and Dog tags.  This is pretty standard expectations…so is carrying your military ID on your person at work.


----------



## Quirky (14 Jul 2022)

Furniture said:


> This is exactly why the new dress regulations are coming out.
> 
> How would purple hair, a goatee, or pink nail polish impact your ability to lift?



Every car dealership, be it BMW, Acura or Nissan that I’ve been inside the salesmen/women were cleanly groomed and presentable. Any realtor or doctor or lawyer or financial advisor or dealership employee I’ve dealt with didnt have purple hair or pink nail polish, well not the men anyway. You know why, because purple hair and nail polish is unprofessional.

But it’s okay in a “professional” military.


----------



## Remius (14 Jul 2022)

Quirky said:


> Every car dealership, be it BMW, Acura or Nissan that I’ve been inside the salesmen/women were cleanly groomed and presentable. Any realtor or doctor or lawyer or financial advisor or dealership employee I’ve dealt with didnt have purple hair or pink nail polish, well not the men anyway. You know why, because purple hair and nail polish is unprofessional.
> 
> But it’s okay in a “professional” military.


Yet there are no rules prohibiting a doctor or lawyer from getting purple hair or pink nail polish. 

They can.  And I bet a few do.  But the majority don’t.  Just like the CAF.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Jul 2022)

Pink hair. Blue hair. No hair.

I just want a new airplane and some reasonable pay raises so my wife and I are secure when I hand my kit in.  

Ball hats and boots and stuff are nice but…peas.  I care more about the steak.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> Yet there are no rules prohibiting a doctor or lawyer from getting purple hair or pink nail polish.


I bet a lot of firms and hospitals do have restrictive dress codes.

Not a lot of pink and blue hair or face tattos here.









						Henein Hutchison LLP | Canada's Top Litigation Boutique Law Firm
					

Our strength is advocacy. With six partners and a corps of lawyers, we focus on criminal & civil litigation, corporate investigation, regulatory and appeal.




					hhllp.ca


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Jul 2022)

Show up at a skate board shop for a job interview in a 3 piece suit, chances of getting hired are.....

Go downtown and look at the "suits" they are almost clones of each other. If you don't dress that way and you are not a superstar for the business, then your going nowhere but out.

Every profession has it dress code, most are unwritten.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jul 2022)

> How would purple hair, a goatee, or pink nail polish impact your ability to lift?



Shouldn't have any impact at all.  Gender at birth and lifestyle, however, will have an impact.


----------



## Furniture (14 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Show up at a skate board shop for a job interview in a 3 piece suit, chances of getting hired are.....
> 
> Go downtown and look at the "suits" they are almost clones of each other. If you don't dress that way and you are not a superstar for the business, then your going nowhere but out.
> 
> *Every profession has it dress code, most are unwritten.*


Many have written and unwritten ones, the CAF is shaping up to be that sort of organization.

Let's not pretend that we don't already have people pushing the limits of what is allowed at this time. Those people will just have a new limit to push, and the bulk of the CAF will carry on looking somewhere between "average Canadian", and pusser.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Jul 2022)

You say pusser and my mind shows me…


----------



## mariomike (14 Jul 2022)

Quirky said:


> Every car dealership, be it BMW, Acura or Nissan that I’ve been inside the salesmen/women were cleanly groomed and presentable. Any realtor or doctor or lawyer or financial advisor or dealership employee I’ve dealt with didnt have purple hair or pink nail polish, well not the men anyway. You know why, because purple hair and nail polish is unprofessional.
> 
> But it’s okay in a “professional” military.





First impressions count. They say you only have seven seconds to make a good one.


----------



## Furniture (14 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> You say pusser and my mind shows me…
> 
> View attachment 72015


The hat looks a lot like my shiny new one... Maybe I'll grow my hair out after Labour Day.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Jul 2022)

Do it!!


----------



## Furniture (14 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Do it!!


The bat badge even kinda almost looks like Int, if you drink 6 beer and squint.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Jul 2022)

Furniture said:


> The bat badge even kinda almost looks like Int, if you drink 6 beer and squint.



Gimme a sec…😂


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> ID in front chest pocket?
> 
> The almost 2 decades I wore combats/CADPAT it was there but…in a wallet. That’s how we rolled in Cornwallis and just kept doing it…


The ID in front left pocket is just a personal quirk by someone who was trained that way and can't or won't think for themselves. We all have run into the MCpl or Sgt or WO that insists everything has to be done because "its always been that way."

The one out of 30 that shows up with pink or purple hair or whatever will stand out - and I can pretty much safely say that unless they like the attention they will soon conform to a group standard - like all those "suits" in law offices etc.

Adding: Many years ago someone told me that some US Forces used velcro patches to identify what kit was where IE FA Kit etc. 

"Oh those stupid Americans" was one comment. After some thought I said to myself that might be a good idea. My FA stuff might not be where others keep theirs. It is a quick way to find stuff especially when it is urgently needed.


----------



## Remius (14 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> The ID in front left pocket is just a personal quirk by someone who was trained that way and can't or won't think for themselves. We all have run into the MCpl or Sgt or WO that insists everything has to be done because "its always been that way."
> 
> The one out of 30 that shows up with pink or purple hair or whatever will stand out - and I can pretty much safely say that unless they like the attention they will soon conform to a group standard - like all those "suits" in law offices etc.
> 
> ...



We teach things or rather we teach without explaining things.  Things like lacing, ID card in left breast pocket, wearing of kit a certain way (like snailed webbing etc).  It’s to get to *a* standard.  Sometimes people leave thinking it is *THE* standard. 

And the instructors that may have spent too much time at the mega, battle school or leadership schools may also start thinking that way as well.


----------



## Furniture (14 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> We teach things or rather we teach without explaining things.  Things like lacing, ID card in left breast pocket, wearing of kit a certain way (like snailed webbing etc).  It’s to get to *a* standard.  Sometimes people leave thinking it is *THE* standard.
> 
> And the instructors that may have spent too much time at the mega, battle school or leadership schools may also start thinking that way as well.


Even outside the combat arms,"schoolitis" is a serious problem... 

Too many leaders are inexperienced, and don't know enough to know the difference between "this makes testing at the school easy", and "this is how it's actually done.".


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Jul 2022)

I just kept my wallet in the left pocket of the old green combats because it was out of the way there.  Smokes were in the other.  🤷🏻‍♂️


----------



## Remius (14 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I just kept my wallet in the left pocket of the old green combats because it was out of the way there.  Smokes were in the other.  🤷🏻‍♂️


Smokes get crushed in that pocket in the infantry…


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Pink hair. Blue hair. No hair.
> 
> I just want a new airplane and some reasonable pay raises so my wife and I are secure when I hand my kit in.
> 
> Ball hats and boots and stuff are nice but…peas.  I care more about the steak.



You're an AESOP right ? You already make more than most of the the rest of the NCM corps.  Mind if the rest of us go to the front of the line this time ?  Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to add perspective. 

I am so jealous of the RCAF Union.  If I wasn't brainwashed into the RCN I may have switched lol


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Jul 2022)

Furniture said:


> The hat looks a lot like my shiny new one... Maybe I'll grow my hair out after Labour Day.



I have one of those short on the sides long on top hair cuts and I've had it for years.  I just started growing it and wanted to see if anyone would say anything; and no one did.  Now that its gonna be legal I might go back to the flat top Johnny Unitas look.


----------



## Quirky (15 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> Yet there are no rules prohibiting a doctor or lawyer from getting purple hair or pink nail polish.
> 
> They can.  And I bet a few do.  But the majority don’t.  Just like the CAF.



Just because they can, doesn't mean they should. Their legitimacy in the profession won't last long in the real world. Just like the CAF.




These new regs will make it easier to spot the clowns in the circus.


----------



## Remius (15 Jul 2022)

Quirky said:


> Just because they can, doesn't mean they should. Their legitimacy in the profession won't last long in the real world. Just like the CAF.
> 
> 
> View attachment 72025
> ...


Things will come to a natural conclusion just like it does in civy land.  People need not panic.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> Things will come to a natural conclusion just like it does in civy land.  People need not panic.



Absolutely, there will be a big bang and quick flash when it changes and then things will level out.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (15 Jul 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Absolutely, there will be a big bang and quick flash when it changes and then things will level out.


Just like Beards, Boots, and Bud did in the past.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Jul 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I have one of those short on the sides long on top hair cuts and I've had it for years.  I just started growing it and wanted to see if anyone would say anything; and no one did.  Now that its gonna be legal I might go back to the flat top Johnny Unitas look.
> 
> 
> View attachment 72024


Oh you rebel 👍🏻


----------



## mariomike (15 Jul 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I might go back to the flat top Johnny Unitas look.



You look like Johnny Unitas?


----------



## Quirky (15 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> Things will come to a natural conclusion just like it does in civy land.  People need not panic.



I don't think anyone is panicking. Some are finally taking their pensions and leaving for pinker pastures as a 'final straw'. This isn't something I'd retire or release over.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (15 Jul 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I have one of those short on the sides long on top hair cuts and I've had it for years.  I just started growing it and wanted to see if anyone would say anything; and no one did.  Now that its gonna be legal I might go back to the flat top Johnny Unitas look.
> 
> 
> View attachment 72024


Now there's a haircut you could set your watch to.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jul 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I have one of those short on the sides long on top hair cuts and I've had it for years.  I just started growing it and wanted to see if anyone would say anything; and no one did.  _Now that its gonna be legal I might go back to the flat top Johnny Unitas look._
> 
> 
> View attachment 72024


I will not be surprised when a lot of people - especially 25-40 year olds - do the same. It will be a reaction: pink hair and face piercings are OK? Great, I'm going for the opposite "look."


----------



## mariomike (15 Jul 2022)

Edward Campbell said:


> I will not be surprised when a lot of people - especially 25-40 year olds - do the same. It will be a reaction: pink hair and face piercings are OK? Great, I'm going for the opposite "look."



"His ticker stopped in the middle of a junior flat-top."

"Me? I just cut the hair."


----------



## ArmyRick (15 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Now there's a haircut you could set your watch to.


A fellow Simpsons aficionado. The wisdom Of old Abe Simpson


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Jul 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> You're an AESOP right ? You already make more than most of the the rest of the NCM corps.  Mind if the rest of us go to the front of the line this time ?  Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to add perspective.
> 
> I am so jealous of the RCAF Union.  If I wasn't brainwashed into the RCN I may have switched lol



Lots of trades are Spec1; my AIRCRA isn’t actually worth much after taxes, less so if it was a month with 100+ hours logged.   With all the quals and currencies we need to maintain to keep flying, exams and simulator times…AIRCRA doesn’t amount to much compensation for effort needed.  With all the skills/knowledge/proficiency we need to maintain, the Spec1 value is questionable to me often.  There’s significant effort for it and impact on life.  It’s about $10 more a day than someone same rank/PI in the Standard group after deductions etc.

AIRCRA… not pensionable.  Make it pensionable and it’s worth it.

The real money in my trade is LRP Dets; tax free on named Ops usually get Ops FSP, HA, RA and full per diem.  Spec1 and aircrew are peanuts compared to those trips.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jul 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> You're an AESOP right ? You already make more than most of the the rest of the NCM corps.  Mind if the rest of us go to the front of the line this time ?  Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to add perspective.



I should have added…I was thinking pay raise a la the kind when everyone gets it.   Our increases every 3-4 years aren’t even coming close to keeping up with the rising COL in this country under the current govt.  

The next pay review the RCAF is doing after the pilot and SAR Tech one, the other 3 aircrew trades aren’t included in the 9 RCAF managed ones that are part of the next review.



Halifax Tar said:


> I am so jealous of the RCAF Union.  If I wasn't brainwashed into the RCN I may have switched lol



If not the RCAF one, the Air Operations branch for sure.  All the tech trades are Spec1, AES Op is Spec1, Flt Engr and NDT are Spec2 and SAR Techs are equivalent to LCol-Col GSO pay.


----------



## TCM621 (16 Jul 2022)

Furniture said:


> Yet the CAF wonders why people don't join/stay in...


In the 70s and 80s they beat the crap out of you but they didn't have the retention and recruiting issues we have. I think we need to look at what they had to keep them in that we don't have.


----------



## Remius (16 Jul 2022)

TCM621 said:


> In the 70s and 80s they beat the crap out of you but they didn't have the retention and recruiting issues we have. I think we need to look at what they had to keep them in that we don't have.


Grade 8 education requirement is what they had.   People with no prospects tend to stay in.  Society has managed to close that education gap so now more prospects.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jul 2022)

Is that empirically grounded, or is it one of those things that everybody just knows?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Jul 2022)

Look, there is no magic dress or deportment issue at the source of recruiting/retention problem. It's a natural cycle and goes this way in peacetime:

Bad economy and high unemployment = good recruiting and retention;
Good economy and low unemployment = bad recruiting and retention.

Recruiting/retention is about to get good again


----------



## TacticalTea (16 Jul 2022)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Look, there is no magic dress or deportment issue at the source of recruiting/retention problem. It's a natural cycle and goes this way in peacetime:
> 
> Bad economy and high unemployment = good recruiting and retention;
> Good economy and low unemployment = bad recruiting and retention.
> ...


It'll be bad for a while before it gets good. One of the principal problems with the economy right now is stagflation. We have a tight labour market not because of growth, but because people are dropping out of the workforce, no real economic growth, yet prices are through the roof. In other words, it's overheating due to coolant failure and god only knows how it'll end.

*On the topic of the thread...* after reading through these 44 pages, I guess my final opinion is that there's no other way forward - given the political, legal and social reality of Canada - than those changes, but I do have a problem with two things.

1. It still requires me to wear a hat everywhere. 

2. It ends the practice of having all recruits shave their heads on basic, which is an awfully bad idea in my view. Why? Because it allows people to wrongfully think and feel that they'll never have to sacrifice their appearance for operational purposes. Those individuals might then be surprised when push comes to shove, and that's one more reason they'd have to find excuses not to deploy. In essence, we'd be training and investing in un-deployable - thus militarily useless - members. It's a bad idea for the same reasons that letting recruits have cellphones on basic is a bad idea, and that outlawing punitive PT is a bad idea. In a war, you won't have cell service whenever. If you fuck up, you will seriously pay for it, no matter what.

*On the idea that there's no difference between funky, coloured hair, and natural colours and short hair*... Maybe dwell on the biological differences involved? It's not ''my preference'' to have brown hair... it's just how it is. It follows logically that doing something other than keeping it out of the way (short) is an outward expression of style, meant to attract attention. Contrary to popular claims, no one dresses / wears makeup / does anything purely aesthetic ''only for themselves''. If you did, you'd be wearing cargo shorts and a T-shirt every day - because that's what folks who really ''dress for themselves'' do.

*On the idea that dress and deportment have no correlation with behaviour and mental health*... Some of you's haven't gone through CEGEP and it shows. I say that because CÉGEP is the college that every aspiring university student has to go through in Québec, and it includes psychology courses. Some of the basic psychology topics explored in those courses include: how linguistic differences affect cognitive processes / perception, how appearance reflects and affects behaviour (Ie; police officers with black uniforms are usually more violent), as well as an introduction to mental illness (and how a majority of mentally ill individuals have more than one diagnosis, one of those typically being a personality disorder that includes attention-seeking behaviour).

Breadcrumbs:
https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/attention-seeking-behavior#common-causes
https://genesight.com/blog/patient/managing-multiple-mental-illnesses/#:~:text=Is%20it%20possible%20to%20have,had%20two%20or%20more%20disorders.


----------



## btrudy (16 Jul 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> *On the idea that there's no difference between funky, coloured hair, and natural colours and short hair*... Maybe dwell on the biological differences involved? It's not ''my preference'' to have brown hair... it's just how it is.



The default state might be "just how it is", but the fact that you haven't decided to change that default state to something else is indeed based upon your preference. There isn't a shade of natural occurring hair which exists which can't be replicated via the bottle. And currently, there's plenty of people in the CAF who are wearing hair that isn't their natural shade. 

You've got a choice to dye your hair, and you chose not to. 



TacticalTea said:


> It follows logically that doing something other than keeping it out of the way (short) is an outward expression of style, meant to attract attention. Contrary to popular claims, no one dresses / wears makeup / does anything purely aesthetic ''only for themselves''. If you did, you'd be wearing cargo shorts and a T-shirt every day - because that's what folks who really ''dress for themselves'' do.



Nonsense. There's lots of people out there who prefer to dress for comfort, and there's lots of people out there who like looking good. "Good" being defined by their own personal preferences of course.

And with regards to hair, both of those approaches (and everything in between) can be accomodated. Great!


----------



## kev994 (16 Jul 2022)

I might dye my hair blue the first day just to get a rise out of the troops. I don’t have enough hair for it to last long though.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jul 2022)

Tattoo your scalp blue.


----------



## MilEME09 (16 Jul 2022)

We laugh until the RSM stipulates hair will be dyed regimental colours.......


----------



## Ostrozac (16 Jul 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> 2. It ends the practice of having all recruits shave their heads on basic,


Dude, I don’t know what planet you’ve been living on, but that’s not a thing. I went to Chilliwack in 1992, and my high school standard hair was very lightly trimmed by the CANEX barber. And the potential nurses in my platoon? They learned the then-standard military art of the French braid, and then went on to probably more successful careers than me.

All recruits shaving their heads has never been a thing.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jul 2022)

Ostrozac said:


> Dude, I don’t know what planet you’ve been living on, but that’s not a thing. I went to Chilliwack in 1992, and my high school standard hair was very lightly trimmed by the CANEX barber. And the potential nurses in my platoon? They learned the then-standard military art of the French braid, and then went on to probably more successful careers than me.
> 
> All recruits shaving their heads has never been a thing.



Not shaving with a razor but you got your first haircut right down to the wood. It was very close let’s put it that way.


----------



## kev994 (16 Jul 2022)

Ostrozac said:


> All recruits shaving their heads has never been a thing.


It was n 2000 in StJean, even if your head was already shaved. Did not apply for women though.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Jul 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> We laugh until the RSM stipulates hair will be dyed regimental colours.......



Or certain arms and services have to have certain hair styles...

... this would be Infantry 






			http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2015/05/Wez-RoadWarrior.gif


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> Grade 8 education requirement is what they had.   People with no prospects tend to stay in.  Society has managed to close that education gap so now more prospects.



My father quit school after grade 8 to help on the farm, joined the RCAF at age 17 in the early 1950s as an airframe tech.  Remaster to Flight Engineer in ‘67 and went to the Argus fleet, worked his way up to Lead FE, responsible for a complex aircraft etc.

Retired; decided he’d apply to the local Schurmans window and door plant where my uncle worked for something to do and a little bit of money.  Found out they couldn’t hire him without a minimum grade 10 education.

After almost 30 years of service, ending as a FE on a 4 engine aircraft that could fly for a day+ straight, he couldn’t be hired to put caulking on a window frame.

He’d help build his own house, cottage and boot house but…nope, sorry.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Jul 2022)

Those people who are waiting to be the first to dye their hair/beard etc and “be one of the first…”, I regret to inform you that 14 Wing popped that bubble YEARS ago.  You are all woefully  behind the curve!!  Dyed hair/beards is *SO* 2019 👊🏻





__ https://www.facebook.com/TheAuroraNews/photos/a.812483045623810/1322999937905449
			




(Yes that is the former Wing Commander during a fundraiser in Dec 2019)

LRP.. _leading the way_ ™️ even though we don’t know where we are going! ( Ops normal some would argue 😝)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Jul 2022)

Ostrozac said:


> Dude, I don’t know what planet you’ve been living on, but that’s not a thing. I went to Chilliwack in 1992, and my high school standard hair was very lightly trimmed by the CANEX barber. And the potential nurses in my platoon? They learned the then-standard military art of the French braid, and then went on to probably more successful careers than me.
> 
> All recruits shaving their heads has never been a thing.



All male recruits in Cornwallis got a 0 all over cut in Week 1 when I went thru in ‘89.  The top was allowed to grow after that that it was 0 sided/back during Basic.  You could guess what week recruits where in by the length of the top and it was a way to identify “seniority” in a glance at Champlain Hall etc.  At CLFRS in 2006/07 when I was there, I think it was a 2 all over in Week 1 except for females and those accommodated by religion or FN.

It wasn’t optional for white males, that’s for sure.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Jul 2022)

We had a townhall last week with the RCAF CCWO.  Changes to dress were talked about of course and everyone was briefed the new version of CFP 265 with changes to Ch 2 would be available on Aug 6th before they come into effect on Sep 6th.

I’m curious if the following paras from Chap 1 will remain as is or be amended.  Anyone who thinks about it can likely remember a time the “subj to overall command direction” has been ignored at the Comdt/CO and Chief levels; I wonder if wondering will be amended to better define left and right or arcs…

CONTROL​
Control is exercised by local commanders who may standardize the dress of subordinates on any occasion, including the wear of accoutrements and alternative or optional items, subject to overall command direction. See also Chapter 2, Section 1, paragraph 44.
High standards of dress, deportment, and grooming are universally recognized as marks of a well-trained, disciplined and professional force. Commanders shall maintain the standards at all times to reinforce these characteristics for peace or war. Unauthorized modification of dress demonstrates inefficient and undisciplined training and a failure of those in command to focus on the purpose of a uniformed armed force.


----------



## RangerRay (17 Jul 2022)

Ostrozac said:


> Dude, I don’t know what planet you’ve been living on, but that’s not a thing. I went to Chilliwack in 1992, and my high school standard hair was very lightly trimmed by the CANEX barber. And the potential nurses in my platoon? They learned the then-standard military art of the French braid, and then went on to probably more successful careers than me.
> 
> All recruits shaving their heads has never been a thing.



When I was in Wainwright in the mid 90's for QL 2/3 Infantry, everyone's first haircut was a #1 all the way around.  After that, we could grow the top to a #2.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Jul 2022)

There were no such haircuts when I went through Basic, and then B.O.C.  I think it is a thing that started somewhere in the late 80's. And to me, it is another one of those American thing we improperly imported.

The dress regs do not repeat not say "Thou shall have a different haircut standard for basic". The regs concerning haircuts are and remain the same for all, recruits included, and a recruit showing up with a haircut that meets the regs or who wishes to have a haircut on the longer side permitted by the standard, should not be bothered and forced to get another one to a more stringent "standard" (and I use "standard" in quotation mark because I am sure no one can show me where that "standard" comes from). 

What does it teaches recruits when the first thing you do is fail to abide by your own standard?


----------



## Weinie (17 Jul 2022)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> There were no such haircuts when I went through Basic, and then B.O.C.  I think it is a thing that started somewhere in the late 80's. And to me, it is another one of those American thing we improperly imported.
> 
> The dress regs do not repeat not say "Thou shall have a different haircut standard for basic". The regs concerning haircuts are and remain the same for all, recruits included, and a recruit showing up with a haircut that meets the regs or who wishes to have a haircut on the longer side permitted by the standard, should not be bothered and forced to get another one to a more stringent "standard" (and I use "standard" in quotation mark because I am sure no one can show me where that "standard" comes from).
> 
> What does it teaches recruits when the first thing you do is fail to abide by your own standard?


They shaved us all in Cornwallis in 83.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Jul 2022)

Weinie said:


> They shaved us all in Cornwallis in 83.


At Chilliwack in BOTC in the 1980s, I cannot recall the staff being overly concerned about hair length (meaning that everyone seemed to figure out the “acceptable” standard on their own). There was certainly no haircut parade.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> Nonsense. There's lots of people out there who prefer to dress for comfort, and there's lots of people out there who like looking good. "Good" being defined by their own personal preferences of course.
> 
> And with regards to hair, both of those approaches (and everything in between) can be accomodated. Great!



Suppose a soldier goes full send and pushes the new dress regs to the limits. All good. What do you suppose the punishment should be if another soldier were to see them and tell them they think they look absolutely ridiculous? Maybe even stupid.


----------



## btrudy (17 Jul 2022)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> What does it teaches recruits when the first thing you do is fail to abide by your own standard?



Well, I think it teaches them that standards are often ignored, or just that people quite frequently don't bother to look up the reference in question. 

Which frankly probably prepped them reasonably well for service in the CAF, since that shit happens everywhere. .


----------



## btrudy (17 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Suppose a soldier goes full send and pushes the new dress regs to the limits. All good. What do you suppose the punishment should be if another soldier were to see them and tell them they think they look absolutely ridiculous? Maybe even stupid.



Maybe a light scolding if it's a one-time thing. If it becomes repeated, I'd say start at an initial counselling and work from there. Harassing people because you don't like the way they look is, of course, unacceptable. Textbook toxic work environment right there. 100% exactly the type of shit that we're trying to purge from the military's culture.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Jul 2022)

That seems fair. I wonder if we can be scolded for polite compliments.

You look very professional. I like what you did with your hair. Both things I've said to co-workers in the past. You're right about harassing behavior though of course.


----------



## lenaitch (17 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> That seems fair. I wonder if we can be scolded for polite compliments.
> 
> You look very professional. I like what you did with your hair. Both things I've said to co-workers in the past. You're right about harassing behavior though of course.


With the wrong person, you're treading on dangerous ground.  Some people are on perma-defence.  If not then, then perhaps filed.  You would want to know your audience.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jul 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> At Chilliwack in BOTC in the 1980s, I cannot recall the staff being overly concerned about hair length (meaning that everyone seemed to figure out the “acceptable” standard on their own). There was certainly no haircut parade.


I did driver support there several times, who knows I might have driven your platoon to the training areas. The Staff were fairly relaxed with the Officer Cadets, focusing on how well they could work as a team, leadership and problem solving.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> I did driver support there several times, who knows I might have driven your platoon to the training areas. The Staff were fairly relaxed with the Officer Cadets, focusing on how well they could work as a team, leadership and problem solving.


That is what I recall. There were room and dress inspections every day we weren’t in the field, but I don’t recall them being terribly onerous.


----------



## Weinie (17 Jul 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> That is what I recall. There were room and dress inspections every day we weren’t in the field, but I don’t recall them being terribly onerous.


I did BOTC five years after basic training. Compared to Cornwallis, it was a joke.


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Jul 2022)

I used to keep the side’s regulations but the top was really long


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Suppose a soldier goes full send and pushes the new dress regs to the limits. All good. What do you suppose the punishment should be if another soldier were to see them and tell them they think they look absolutely ridiculous? Maybe even stupid.



Promote that person to MCpl, immediately, so they can continue to be tortured by the wierdos but get paid for the pleasure


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> That seems fair. I wonder if we can be scolded for polite compliments.
> 
> You look very professional. I like what you did with your hair. Both things I've said to co-workers in the past. You're right about harassing behavior though of course.


Glass half empty:

You can no longer make fun of people who wear course t-shirts 20 years later

Glass half full:

I wanna see the look on someone's face when someone wears Jeans in the Petawawa Officer's Mess 🤣


----------



## SupersonicMax (17 Jul 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I wanna see the look on someone's face when someone wears Jeans in the Petawawa Officer's Mess 🤣


No jeans in the mess is really still a thing?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> No jeans in the mess is really still a thing?


You don't Army much do you?  😉


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Jul 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Glass half empty:
> 
> You can no longer make fun of people who wear course t-shirts 20 years later


Course T-Shirts, CF garrison belts, gerbers, desert boots, I'll still take that harassment hit lol



Humphrey Bogart said:


> Glass half full:
> 
> I wanna see the look on someone's face when someone wears Jeans in the Petawawa Officer's Mess 🤣


I have it on good authority the Petawawa officers mess continues to treat people who do them favors like shit. I'd imagine the no jeans rule is still sacrosanct.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> No jeans in the mess is really still a thing?



Denim is the Devil’s portal to Hell:


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jul 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I wanna see the look on someone's face when someone wears Jeans in the Petawawa Officer's Mess 🤣


I am one small cog in the (fast growing) wheel that wants to allow "tasteful" (not torn? acceptable for "casual Friday" in a brokerage firm? (I've seen that.)) jeans in the Ottawa Army Officers Mess all year round.

Right now they are allowed during the _United Way_ campaign if you are wearing your "I donated" button - if they are OK then they are OK now.

(Parenthetically: I remember (1960s) when our first combat uniforms were issued. Most officers' messes declared them OK for coffee-break and lunch and for one drink after work, BUT in most units combat uniforms were NEVER worn as "dress of the day" unless the majority of the day was to be spent on the ranges or in the local training area. I remember one colonel saying that "combats" were the army's "jeans.")


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (17 Jul 2022)

There are Army officers that own jeans?  I get RCEME officers who want to do some work on their _Triumph_ in their garage, but outside of them I can't _imagine_ Army officers owning dungarees. And to wear them in the mess? Maybe for a Halloween party dressed as convicts? Jolly good fun those Halloween parties. Cracking good times they were. 

I go on leave for one week. One week. Jeans in the mess. What's next!?!


----------



## SupersonicMax (17 Jul 2022)

TangoTwoBravo said:


> I go on leave for one week. One week. Jeans in the mess. What's next!?!


Blue hair in the mess!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Jul 2022)

TangoTwoBravo said:


> There are Army officers that own jeans?  I get RCEME officers who want to do some work on their _Triumph_ in their garage, but outside of them I can't _imagine_ Army officers owning dungarees. And to wear them in the mess? Maybe for a Halloween party dressed as convicts? Jolly good fun those Halloween parties. Cracking good times they were.
> 
> I go on leave for one week. One week. Jeans in the mess. What's next!?!


Officers wanting to mow their lawns without wearing a jacket and tie (Present company excepted, of course)?


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Blue hair in the mess!


The older ladies here (80+) have been sporting blue hair for decades. They even drive...badly but they drive.

Blue hair is nothing....


----------



## btrudy (18 Jul 2022)

I'm definitely interested to see what happens with the mess dress rules. I think it's pretty clear that every mess is going to be expected / required to reformulate their dress rules to be gender neutral. But a number of messes really just say something like "shirt / tie or ladies equivalent". Or, for example, the aforementioned officer's mess in Petawawa specifies for informal "Men – Jacket and tie with dress Trousers, Women – Dress or Blouse with slacks", which really that when we get rid of the gendered specification in the rules, you're going to be effectively removing the requirement for the jacket and the tie that men previously had to adhere to.

There was a good thread tangential to this back in April on twitter


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> No jeans in the mess is really still a thing?



Dude, you realize that you've just triggered a mass kitten cull, right?


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 Jul 2022)

Weinie said:


> They shaved us all in Cornwallis in 83.


Right down to the wood, Jan 11, 1980. My 70s Geddy Lee locks were taken from me most brutally.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Jul 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Right down to the wood, Jan 11, 1980. My 70s Geddy Lee locks were taken from me most brutally.


My bunkmate - We called him "Dopey" had similar locks. Right down to the wood. It was...amusing to watch.  July 1975


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (18 Jul 2022)

I had a roommate at a now closed base, who worn dresses on weekends.  That was the 1990s. 

Every generation of soldier has some reg changed that will ruin the army in the eyes of the old timer.  For my generation it was the following.

C1 family changing to the C7 Family,  we were not going to kill anything with the plastic gun, and how it bad it looked on parade compared to oak.

When being gay was legal,  they did a tv talk show on it in Toronto ( The Shirley Show)  and they had experts on the panel saying guys and girls would be uncomfortable in the shower because we would worry some same sex person was checking us out.   Not enough time to do that in the mornings,  too much to do to look around. Get wet, get clean, get out,  go eat.   i was at the taping wearing my RCR Battle School T shirt.  

Co-ed barracks on courses,  real eye opener for me  girls on the bunk across from me during my CLC at the RCR battle school on the Mattawa plains.  Got over it quick, too busy  to care.

Now you have boots that do not require polishing,  I would miss not polishing my boots, was a great time killer on Sunday nights watchign tv in the barracks.  Older RSMs must be going nuts looking at the all different boots on parade.

This new dress reg is not going to be the down fall,  it is just another new thing that we will get over and move on, till the next change in uniforms or equipment. 

Just my opinion


----------



## Quirky (18 Jul 2022)

One take:



			https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/smol-trudeaus-hippy-look-for-military-uniform-is-shameful
		



> Reflecting on our Forces’ new, hyper-casual uniform policy, one might see it as a naïve attempt to conjure interest among radical millennial fringe lifestyles that never have, and likely never will, consider the Forces a career. Or, maybe letting some non-binary male military police sergeant or armored soldier wear a female skirt with their newly long pink hair and prominent face tattoo (yes, all that is possible now) is an attempt to weed out more professionally conservative members of the Forces.





> But, maybe I am all wrong and the military’s new casual, self-customizable look is the way of the future. Perhaps I was just brainwashed by the old Cold War army ethos of the 1980s into thinking that drill, dress and deportment were fundamental to a military’s image, cohesion and morale. So maybe once the new hyper-casual dress code comes into effect this September, millennials will actually be lining up in droves to enlist, serve and fight?



Not sure what this has to do with Trudeau, but that would make more sense vise an internally driven change. 

Either way I agree with the crusty old Int officer regarding the professional appearance part. I don't think Canadians will care all that much anyway, which is on par for their feelings towards the CAF.


----------



## Baloo (18 Jul 2022)

And conversely to prove, yet again, that every generation of soldiers endures being seen as 'softer' than the last:

How muscle cars, sideburns and John Travolta helped save the military after Vietnam



> In a 1971 article in Soldier magazine, Spc. Mike Speegle, an unofficial spokesman for the new, relaxed Army was described talking to students at a West Virginia high school about his barracks.
> 
> “It was pretty nice, and as long as it was neat they didn’t care what you had in it. I had black light posters, peace signs, a little styrofoam beer cooler in the corner,” said Speegle.
> 
> The tag lines for the “Today’s Army Wants to Join You” campaign included phrases such as “We care more about what you think, than how you cut your hair” and “When was the last time you got promoted?” It also promised that you could “Take the Army’s 16 month tour of Europe.”


----------



## Baloo (18 Jul 2022)

> So maybe once the new hyper-casual dress code comes into effect this September, millennials will actually be lining up in droves to enlist, serve and fight?



I assume that the generation to whom the author disparagingly refers, is that same one that has served this nation across the globe in multiple active theatres over the past two decades, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Mali, Ukraine and Latvia.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (18 Jul 2022)

Baloo said:


> I assume that the generation to whom the author disparagingly refers, is that same one that has served this nation across the globe in multiple active theatres over the past two decades, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Mali, Ukraine and Latvia.


The eldest millenials are 42. The last of that cohort is 27. A lot of the Cpl/Ptes on the ground in 2006 in Kandahar were millenials and we did a bang up job all things considered.

Its Gen Z you're after, and truth be told, they're the hardest generation to sell anything to because of how critically they think. A generation that has had the wealth of human knowledge and opinion at their finger tips theor entire life is not going to take what you're selling at face value. 

With that, they have grown up in one of the most tolerant and socially liberal periods in history. They are probably the most "woke" because it's socially unacceptable in their peer group to be sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.

So while this is something we all want to put on Millenials, it's not us. We've been on the whipping post for long enough. Gen Z, your turn.


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> The eldest millenials are 42. The last of that cohort is 27. A lot of the Cpl/Ptes on the ground in 2006 in Kandahar were millenials and we did a bang up job all things considered.
> 
> Its Gen Z you're after, and truth be told, they're the hardest generation to sell anything to because of how critically they think. A generation that has had the wealth of human knowledge and opinion at their finger tips theor entire life is not going to take what you're selling at face value.
> 
> ...



Us Gen Xers seem to have escaped this whole generational consternation lol


----------



## AKa (18 Jul 2022)

Gen X gets to roll our eyes at all of them. 

Once all the pearl clutching is done and we get on with the new dress regs, I expect we won't see that much change.  People who hate uniforms and uniformity tend not to join the military.  The intersection of those who want wildly coloured hair/facial tattoos, etc and people who decide to join the CAF will be quite small.  I'll be interested to see how many avail themselves of the more controversial expressions of style. 

I'm a dinosaur and I don't much fuss over these details.  I do rather miss consistently seeing crisp, tidy uniforms that somewhat fit (as much as uniforms ever fit) and footwear that isn't grey with dust.


----------



## Andraste (18 Jul 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Right down to the wood, Jan 11, 1980. My 70s Geddy Lee locks were taken from me most brutally.


LOL . . . I went through in 81 and I remember that after haircut parade, we had to get to know some people again as they looked completely different with their new shorn look.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Jul 2022)

> A generation that has had the wealth of human knowledge and opinion at their finger tips theor entire life is not going to take what you're selling at face value.



Assuming they paid any attention.  Older generations do not have a monopoly on self-assurance and belief that they are on the right side of history, or confidence in knowing things that just aren't so.


----------



## Pieman (18 Jul 2022)

I'm wondering if troops will start creating their own dress and deportment looks within the regiments. The new regulations seem to allow a great deal of variations which allows for creating cliques. For example, you are now in 12 Troop. We wear our hair like so, our beards are trimmed like so, we have a red streak in our hair on the right side. etc. etc. You dress different then you are not a team player. Anyone seeing that kind of thing happen? I suspect this may happen as a way of creating uniformity at a smaller level which might contribute to creating a more effective sense of belonging/loyalty to a troop. The older regulations would not allow for that kind of individalization within the ranks. If it becomes true then there are positive and negative attributes to creating cliques. The negative part being cliques possibly creating hazing ritutals as they create their own group identities. Oh boy, anyone else see how this could spin out of control?


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Jul 2022)

Quirky said:


> Not sure what this has to do with Trudeau, but that would make more sense vise an internally driven change.


Implied intent perhaps.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Jul 2022)

Pieman said:


> I'm wondering if troops will start creating their own dress and deportment looks within the regiments. The new regulations seem to allow a great deal of variations which allows for creating cliques. For example, you are now in 12 Troop. We wear our hair like so, our beards are trimmed like so, we have a red streak in our hair on the right side. etc. etc. You dress different then you are not a team player. Anyone seeing that kind of thing happen? I suspect this may happen as a way of creating uniformity at a smaller level which might contribute to creating a more effective sense of belonging/loyalty to a troop. The older regulations would not allow for that kind of individalization within the ranks. If it becomes true then there are positive and negative attributes to creating cliques. The negative part being cliques possibly creating hazing ritutals as they create their own group identities. Oh boy, anyone else see how this could spin out of control?



Like gang colours in the US military. Good question.

Out of curiosity I googled stormfront colours and this popped up


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Jul 2022)

Or perhaps you need to wear a certain type of socks. And preen while doing so….


----------



## Pieman (18 Jul 2022)

> Like gang colours in the US military. Good question.



Yes, young men will naturally band together under a banner for group security and identity. I always thought that was why the Army gave you an identity and strict uniform dress as a way of preventing these kinds of subgroups forming.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Jul 2022)

Pieman said:


> Yes, young men will naturally band together under a banner for group security and identity. I always thought that was why the Army gave you an identity and strict uniform dress as a way of preventing these kinds of subgroups forming.


Even within the tribe there are clan distinctions. Same with the Army and its Corps and Regiments


----------



## Pieman (18 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Even within the tribe there are clan distinctions. Same with the Army and its Corps and Regiments


They are very subtle in comparison to what can happen now. It's psycolgically significant to wear a group identifier such as  regimental uniform. Now that uniform can be easily split into sub group identities (cliques) with the new dress regulations. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but I do think it carries some concequences and potential risks that the CoC will have to deal with.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Jul 2022)

Pieman said:


> I'm wondering if troops will start creating their own dress and deportment looks within the regiments. The new regulations seem to allow a great deal of variations which allows for creating cliques. For example, you are now in 12 Troop. We wear our hair like so, our beards are trimmed like so, we have a red streak in our hair on the right side. etc. etc. You dress different then you are not a team player. Anyone seeing that kind of thing happen? I suspect this may happen as a way of creating uniformity at a smaller level which might contribute to creating a more effective sense of belonging/loyalty to a troop. The older regulations would not allow for that kind of individalization within the ranks. If it becomes true then there are positive and negative attributes to creating cliques. The negative part being cliques possibly creating hazing ritutals as they create their own group identities. Oh boy, anyone else see how this could spin out of control?



If the Sgts, WOs and Officers are doing their job it’s a non-threat anymore than it is now.


----------



## Remius (18 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Like gang colours in the US military. Good question.
> 
> Out of curiosity I googled stormfront colours and this popped up


Not sure if you watched the show but she’s a Nazi.  Lol.


----------



## Pieman (18 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> If the Sgts, WOs and Officers are doing their job it’s a non-threat anymore than it is now.


Would they? How would they deal with a situation of a clique forming within a Troop? Is it encouraged or discouraged? What are the signs that they look for indicating the clique is getting out of control?


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Jul 2022)

Pieman said:


> Would they? How would they deal with a situation of a clique forming within a Troop? Is it encouraged or discouraged? What are the signs that they look for indicating the clique is getting out of control?


Its rather easy. The RSM and the CSMs see its forming with possible negative consequences.  On unit reorg "Bloggins to A Coy, Smiff to B Coy and Herby to C Coy" . After dismissal they can still socialize however with different schedules its not a given.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Jul 2022)

Pieman said:


> Would they? How would they deal with a situation of a clique forming within a Troop? Is it encouraged or discouraged? What are the signs that they look for indicating the clique is getting out of control?



Sure they would; it’s their troop, and they way you describe it the red streak would be rather easy to see.

Small cliques have been happening forever and aren’t necessarily a bad thing.  I am far more loyal to my crew than I am the Comd RCAF or some other senior RCAF mbr.  Why wouldn’t I be?  They are the ones who are going to pull my fat ass out of the aircraft if we ditch and are sinking.  Comd RCAF will be on the news reading a script approved by a PAO or PMO staffer.   

Bad cliques are different of course and I don’t think they will suddenly become a problem based on personal grooming relaxations.


----------



## Pieman (19 Jul 2022)

> Bad cliques are different of course and I don’t think they will suddenly become a problem based on personal grooming relaxations


 Hopefully not.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Sure they would; it’s their troop, and they way you describe it the red streak would be rather easy to see.
> 
> Small cliques have been happening forever and aren’t necessarily a bad thing.  I am far more loyal to my crew than I am the Comd RCAF or some other senior RCAF mbr.  Why wouldn’t I be?  They are the ones who are going to pull my fat ass out of the aircraft if we ditch and are sinking.  Comd RCAF will be on the news reading a script approved by a PAO or PMO staffer.
> 
> Bad cliques are different of course and I don’t think they will suddenly become a problem based on personal grooming relaxations.


As far as recorded history says the soldier fights for who is beside him/her and not for "King and Country".


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Jul 2022)

I suppose the markers (eg. grooming standards) follow the establishment of a bad clique, not vice versa.



> The RSM and the CSMs see its forming with possible negative consequences.



Back to the ideas raised in this US service paper.  If the institution (leaders) doesn't stay on top of asserting its values, soldiers may assert their own.


----------



## mariomike (19 Jul 2022)

Looks like the Sun is not on board with the new look.



			SMOL: Trudeau’s hippy look for military uniform is shameful
		




> it will inevitably leave the Canadian public, and any aspiring recruit, with the impression there is something shameful with wearing the traditional Canadian military uniform.


----------



## kev994 (19 Jul 2022)

mariomike said:


> Looks like the Sun is not on board with the new look.
> 
> 
> 
> SMOL: Trudeau’s hippy look for military uniform is shameful


I bet if the project was canceled today the Sun would be outraged about that too.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (20 Jul 2022)

mariomike said:


> Looks like the Sun is not on board with the new look.
> 
> 
> 
> SMOL: Trudeau’s hippy look for military uniform is shameful


This government could say the Earth was round and The Sun would post a counter opinion. 

They're very much clear where they fall within media bias.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> This government could say the Earth was round and The Sun would post a counter opinion.
> 
> They're very much clear where they fall within media bias.


Yes it does align with a lot of peoples views. Better than the fawning some media publish.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (20 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Yes it does align with a lot of peoples views. Better than the fawning some media publish.


Not arguing that. Balanced media is a hallmark of democratic society. 

I was merely pointing out that "the Sun not liking this new policy" is not as earth shattering and people think; it would be a akin to finding out the Pope was a Catholic.


----------



## btrudy (20 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Balanced media is a hallmark of democratic society.


I mean, yes, but you achieve that by having media sources with low levels of bias, not by having extremely biased sources on "both sides" of any issue.

The Sun does not contribute towards a balanced media ecology. They're doing their damnedest to actively unbalance it..


----------



## Weinie (20 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> I mean, yes, but you achieve that by having media sources with low levels of bias, not by having extremely biased sources on "both sides" of any issue.
> 
> The Sun does not contribute towards a balanced media ecology. They're doing their damnedest to actively unbalance it..


One could say the same about the Star. You need to seek out multiple reporting/opinions to get a fuller picture.


----------



## Quirky (20 Jul 2022)

Media is a cancer who’s sole purpose is to sell advertising.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> I mean, yes, but you achieve that by having media sources with low levels of bias, not by having extremely biased sources on "both sides" of any issue.
> 
> The CBC does not contribute towards a balanced media ecology. They're doing their damnedest to actively unbalance it..


 Also true?  😀


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Jul 2022)




----------



## markppcli (22 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Just run of the mill brain washing.
> 
> Can you imagine a civilian employee losing 2 and a half weekends seeing their family because their hair slightly touched their ears? And the option to argue meant you become a pariah with a bullseye painted on your back. Finish it off with a looming threat of getting posted and have to uproot your family.


Sorry out of curiosity where do you work so I can add it to places to never be posted to ever ?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> This government could say the Earth was round and The Sun would post a counter opinion.
> 
> They're very much clear where they fall within media bias.


HuffPost, CBC, McLeans, Red Star, G&M....etc, likewise.

I would rather someone question the government motives than just regurgitate the PMO talk points.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (22 Jul 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> HuffPost, CBC, McLeans, Red Star, G&M....etc, likewise.


Oh don't get me wrong, I know media is biased across the spectrum. This is why I teach my kids to have more than 2 sources when forming an opinion on something.


----------



## Furniture (22 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Oh don't get me wrong, I know media is biased across the spectrum. This is why I teach my kids to have more than 2 sources when forming an opinion on something.


Indeed, if you agree with everything you read in the news, you're not reading enough variety of news sources.


----------



## TacticalTea (22 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Oh don't get me wrong, I know media is biased across the spectrum. This is why I teach my kids to have more than 2 sources when forming an opinion on something.


There's a saying in Quebec... If you want to get the news, you read the Journal de Montréal, and if you want a second opinion, you read the Journal de Québec.

The joke being, of course, that they're owned by the same parent company. But hey! That's 2 sources!


----------



## TCM621 (22 Jul 2022)

Pieman said:


> I'm wondering if troops will start creating their own dress and deportment looks within the regiments. The new regulations seem to allow a great deal of variations which allows for creating cliques. For example, you are now in 12 Troop. We wear our hair like so, our beards are trimmed like so, we have a red streak in our hair on the right side. etc. etc. You dress different then you are not a team player. Anyone seeing that kind of thing happen? I suspect this may happen as a way of creating uniformity at a smaller level which might contribute to creating a more effective sense of belonging/loyalty to a troop. The older regulations would not allow for that kind of individalization within the ranks. If it becomes true then there are positive and negative attributes to creating cliques. The negative part being cliques possibly creating hazing ritutals as they create their own group identities. Oh boy, anyone else see how this could spin out of control?


I brought that up in a town hall recently. Every base and unit have always a slightly different standard  despite the dress regs being pretty black and white (more so 20 years ago). The toques and gloves thing is a prime example, it hasn't been in the dress regs for well over a decade yet every year someone decides to make a thing of it. I also know people who have been required to wear a uniform walking in their whole career while I have almost never been required. 

Now the only standard is to QUOTE look professional UNQUOTE and it sure as hell won't be Cpl Bloggins who gets to decide what is professional. When I brought it up the answer was along the lines of we all know what professional looks like but this thread, the ones on Reddit and discussions I have had at work tell me there is a huge difference in what people think is professional. The dress manual was like the drill manual, it was a simple set of instructions to ensure everyone did things the same. When I joined I could read exactly how to get my hair cut, roll my sleeves, blouse my boots and wear to mount my rank insignia. If I followed the book, I was good. Over the years it got less and less specific, and people started to let things slide. Instead of having your sleeves rolled 4 fingers wide above the elbow, you started to see leadership with sleeves clumsily rolled to their elbows with dirty boots. Now, if I stood 10 random people in a line at work some of them would be wearing non issues Tshirts from other squadrons, some of them would have the leather worn off the toe of their boots and some would be wearing the ECU with some wearing old style combats. I can guarantee that I will see someone after the new regs come into effect that looks like a hobo. Long unkempt hair (as opposed to the short unkempt hair you see now) possibly with odd colours, scraggly beard, face tattoos, old combats and beat up boots. Maybe it will be less that 1-2 percent of the Forces that do that but that is all it will take to make us look like a joke.


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 Jul 2022)

TCM621 said:


> I brought that up in a town hall recently. Every base and unit have always a slightly different standard  despite the dress regs being pretty black and white (more so 20 years ago). The toques and gloves thing is a prime example, it hasn't been in the dress regs for well over a decade yet every year someone decides to make a thing of it. I also know people who have been required to wear a uniform walking in their whole career while I have almost never been required.
> 
> Now the only standard is to QUOTE look professional UNQUOTE and it sure as hell won't be Cpl Bloggins who gets to decide what is professional. When I brought it up the answer was along the lines of we all know what professional looks like but this thread, the ones on Reddit and discussions I have had at work tell me there is a huge difference in what people think is professional. The dress manual was like the drill manual, it was a simple set of instructions to ensure everyone did things the same. When I joined I could read exactly how to get my hair cut, roll my sleeves, blouse my boots and wear to mount my rank insignia. If I followed the book, I was good. Over the years it got less and less specific, and people started to let things slide. Instead of having your sleeves rolled 4 fingers wide above the elbow, you started to see leadership with sleeves clumsily rolled to their elbows with dirty boots. Now, if I stood 10 random people in a line at work some of them would be wearing non issues Tshirts from other squadrons, some of them would have the leather worn off the toe of their boots and some would be wearing the ECU with some wearing old style combats. I can guarantee that I will see someone after the new regs come into effect that looks like a hobo. Long unkempt hair (as opposed to the short unkempt hair you see now) possibly with odd colours, scraggly beard, face tattoos, old combats and beat up boots. Maybe it will be less that 1-2 percent of the Forces that do that but that is all it will take to make us look like a joke.


And what will be the effect on their work?

Why do we care that someone looks like this?



Or this?


----------



## Kilted (22 Jul 2022)

TCM621 said:


> I brought that up in a town hall recently. Every base and unit have always a slightly different standard  despite the dress regs being pretty black and white (more so 20 years ago). The toques and gloves thing is a prime example, it hasn't been in the dress regs for well over a decade yet every year someone decides to make a thing of it. I also know people who have been required to wear a uniform walking in their whole career while I have almost never been required.
> 
> Now the only standard is to QUOTE look professional UNQUOTE and it sure as hell won't be Cpl Bloggins who gets to decide what is professional. When I brought it up the answer was along the lines of we all know what professional looks like but this thread, the ones on Reddit and discussions I have had at work tell me there is a huge difference in what people think is professional. The dress manual was like the drill manual, it was a simple set of instructions to ensure everyone did things the same. When I joined I could read exactly how to get my hair cut, roll my sleeves, blouse my boots and wear to mount my rank insignia. If I followed the book, I was good. Over the years it got less and less specific, and people started to let things slide. Instead of having your sleeves rolled 4 fingers wide above the elbow, you started to see leadership with sleeves clumsily rolled to their elbows with dirty boots. Now, if I stood 10 random people in a line at work some of them would be wearing non issues Tshirts from other squadrons, some of them would have the leather worn off the toe of their boots and some would be wearing the ECU with some wearing old style combats. I can guarantee that I will see someone after the new regs come into effect that looks like a hobo. Long unkempt hair (as opposed to the short unkempt hair you see now) possibly with odd colours, scraggly beard, face tattoos, old combats and beat up boots. Maybe it will be less that 1-2 percent of the Forces that do that but that is all it will take to make us look like a joke.


The internet has really helped stop some units from trying to interpret the dress regs their own way, CANFORGENS and regulations actually get down to the lowest level now.  I was very happy when we stopped rolling up our sleeves with the new uniform, although there are a few people who are still somehow getting away with doing it (I have only seen officers do it). As for the old uniforms. you can't really blame people for still having them when clothing stores won't exchange them.  I've seen BMQs recently with almost half the troops in old uniforms.  I only have one of the new uniforms myself.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> And what will be the effect on their work?
> 
> Why do we care that someone looks like this?
> 
> ...



That's a trick question because if someone does care and has a negative opinion then they're basically Hitler.

I mean, it wouldn't hurt anyone to let soldiers put clown make up on, rainbow wig, big red nose, and a water gun flower.

Soldiers should also be allowed to wear their uniform backwards and inside out.


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> That's a trick question because if someone does care and has a negative opinion then they're basically Hitler.
> 
> I mean, it wouldn't hurt anyone to let soldiers put clown make up on, rainbow wig, big red nose, and a water gun flower.
> 
> Soldiers should also be allowed to wear their uniform backwards and inside out.


My point is that it is possible to look and be professional within the bounds of the new dress regulations.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jul 2022)

That doesn't look professional just because a CAF advisory board says it does all of a sudden. 

It's not the standard for what passes as a professional in our society if you're talking corporate or business. Musician or tattoo artist?  Sure. 

I know it's 2022 and we're pushing that looks don't matter,  but they still do in many many areas. 

You can be professional even though you're dressed like a clown but I'd argue not many will consider you look professional. Because you look like a clown. 

Since looks don't matter  should we be able to wear our uniforms and look like penny wise, Ronald McDonald, or Krusty the clown?


----------



## lenaitch (22 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> My point is that it is possible to look and be professional within the bounds of the new dress regulations.


And it may happen, but is it stated as a requirement?  I don't know the wording of the new regs (or the old ones for that matter), but if it just a listing of what members can do, 'looking' professional remains subjective and may or may not have a direct relationship with 'being' professional. 

I await a Bay St. lawyer appearing before the SCOC in bib coveralls.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jul 2022)

I would love to adopt Jack Sparrow’s pirate 🏴‍☠️ uniform


----------



## Furniture (22 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> That doesn't look professional just because a CAF advisory board says it does all of a sudden.
> 
> It's not the standard for what passes as a professional in our society if you're talking corporate or business. Musician or tattoo artist?  Sure.
> 
> ...


While I think this argument is extreme, the other side has been extreme as well. 

I think somewhere between 1950, and a clown show, we can find a reasonable middle. 

@Jarnhamar is 100% correct in pointing out that there is an expectation in society for military/professional people to look a certain way. I think if people act smart, and don't push the lines too far, the public will generally not care about what we do with hair, beards, or nail polish. 

There will of course be people who push the new lines though, just as people push the current lines... John Q Public doesn't know we can't have goatees now, so goatees won't shock too much. A pink goatee, with orange nails, while wearing a skirt to work...that will raise eyebrows.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Jul 2022)

Basically try not to look like a walking TikTok influencer.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (23 Jul 2022)

You cannot legislate the human condition. We can have all the rules, some rules, none of the rules; people are still going to be influenced by their day to day experiences and relationships.

Where we have concrete rules and regulations, it tightens the snare of what is considered acceptable/unacceptable. It's  well defined and backed by consequences for non-compliance. Compliance is non negotionable in following the law and ethical standards of our organization.

The changes to the dress regs are widening the Arcs for sure, but just because troops are allowed to relax dress a bit, doesn't mean everyone is going to go ape over this. It's still personal choice, so long as it's within the approved Arcs; to quote Geddy Lee "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." That choice not to have blue hair, a skirt, or a pony tail to your shoulder blades is influenced by many different things other than CFDI:

-Mrs. Bloggins will still have to have her spouse look like a normal member of society around her peer group

- Pte Bloggins is still headed home to Anywhere, Canada for Chirstmas and summer leave. Mom may have some words for your new gauged ears.

- Ms Right Now at the bar may not find your look desirable and more than a No. 2 on the sides and back did in days of yore

- Mr. Civi Employer whom you have been chatting about a new position with isn't keen on  hiring someone with a new face tattoo or gauged ear lobes.


For those who want to do it, go for it. You're allowed. The changes in regs permit it and it definitely is the right call.


That said, you're swimming up stream from the rest of Canadian society for the most part. If that's your choice, give'r, but  know that you have the freedom to do on account if the CAF.


----------



## Pieman (23 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> And what will be the effect on their work?
> 
> Why do we care that someone looks like this?
> 
> ...


I care because I'm worried that the first one wants to cast a spell on me and that the second one wants to cast a different kind of spell on me.


----------



## markppcli (23 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> That doesn't look professional just because a CAF advisory board says it does all of a sudden.
> 
> It's not the standard for what passes as a professional in our society if you're talking corporate or business. Musician or tattoo artist?  Sure.
> 
> ...


I know this may stun you; but I have more than a few friends that are educated, buisness professionals with hair in exactly that shade, or beards, some with both, some have facial piercings. They go into offices and do their jobs to a high standard, dressed in business attire. Society does not care about this stuff anymore.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> I know this may stun you; but I have more than a few friends that are educated, buisness professionals with hair in exactly that shade, or beards, some with both, some have facial piercings. They go into offices and do their jobs to a high standard, dressed in business attire. Society does not care about this stuff anymore.


Oh they do care, go downtown and you see the "Business suit clones" and people get sidelined all the time. Hell our Japanese student just got lectured by the principal of the international school she goes to for dying her hair a dark brown. Apparently dying your hair even natural colours is a big no no in Japanese culture. The alternate culture groups are also judgemental, in that you need to look edgy to be accepted.


----------



## markppcli (23 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Oh they do care, go downtown and you see the "Business suit clones" and people get sidelined all the time. Hell our Japanese student just got lectured by the principal of the international school she goes to for dying her hair a dark brown. Apparently dying your hair even natural colours is a big no no in Japanese culture. The alternate culture groups are also judgemental, in that you need to look edgy to be accepted.



We aren’t Japan. People with dyed hair, tattoos, and piercings work as doctors, business professionals, EMTs, and everything in between. I don’t really know what you mean by “alternative groups,” but I’m assuming this is your second hand opinion.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> I know this may stun you; but I have more than a few friends that are educated, buisness professionals with hair in exactly that shade, or beards, some with both, some have facial piercings. They go into offices and do their jobs to a high standard, dressed in business attire. Society does not care about this stuff anymore.



Naw I've seen the commercial with the heavily tattooed biker gang looking dude who surprise is a surgeon. I get it. Society is becoming more open minded for sure, I just wouldn't say it's reached the spot where no one cares. Especially in the military. I'll change my views when I start seeing rainbow haired generals with face tats and ear plugs briefing people at NATO summits. Lead by example right? 

Our of curiosity what businesses are your friends in where pink hair and facial piercings are welcomed?

My close friend is a veterinary technician and has bright pink hair and a nose ring and no one cares.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Jul 2022)

TCM621 said:


> I can guarantee that I will see someone after the new regs come into effect that looks like a hobo. Long unkempt hair (as opposed to the short unkempt hair you see now) possibly with odd colours, scraggly beard, face tattoos, old combats and beat up boots.



Aren't they called S.O.F.?



Jarnhamar said:


> You can be professional even though you're dressed like a clown ...



James Bond disarmed a nuclear bomb dressed as a clown once (Octopussy).



Jarnhamar said:


> My close friend is a veterinary technician and has bright pink hair and a nose ring and no one cares.



I fail to see why the animals would care what their technician looks like.


----------



## Remius (23 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Naw I've seen the commercial with the heavily tattooed biker gang looking dude who surprise is a surgeon. I get it. Society is becoming more open minded for sure, I just wouldn't say it's reached the spot where no one cares. Especially in the military. I'll change my views when I start seeing rainbow haired generals with face tats and ear plugs briefing people at NATO summits. Lead by example right?
> 
> Our of curiosity what businesses are your friends in where pink hair and facial piercings are welcomed?
> 
> My close friend is a veterinary technician and has bright pink hair and a nose ring and no one cares.


My best Friend’s wife has pink hair, sometimes blue, working for a government security agency.  No one seems to care.  

My current HR advisor has bright red hair.  Again, no one seems to care.  And she’s one of the best HR advisors I’ve had.


----------



## markppcli (23 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Naw I've seen the commercial with the heavily tattooed biker gang looking dude who surprise is a surgeon. I get it. Society is becoming more open minded for sure, I just wouldn't say it's reached the spot where no one cares. Especially in the military. I'll change my views when I start seeing rainbow haired generals with face tats and ear plugs briefing people at NATO summits. Lead by example right?



I don’t see what the point your trying to make here is? Our dress regs are designed to make us look like professional, well put together people from 1950, 70 years later we’re adjusting that to make us look like professional well put together people from 2020. Are people going to take advantage initially? Probably but that’s why we have NCOs to enforce standards; the standard is now just a bit more nuanced.



Jarnhamar said:


> Our of curiosity what businesses are your friends in where pink hair and facial piercings are welcomed?
> 
> My close friend is a veterinary technician and has bright pink hair and a nose ring and no one cares.


One is in marketing and advertisement, another works as a mechanical engineer for Finning, a couple are EMTs. Hell my sister had half her head shaved with a purple streak in it and is a committee clerk for a provincial legislature.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> My best Friend’s wife has pink hair, sometimes blue, working for a government security agency.  No one seems to care.
> 
> My current HR advisor has bright red hair.  Again, no one seems to care.  And she’s one of the best HR advisors I’ve had.



Good examples. Do you think the agency your friends wife works with would be okay with her having her face full of tattos?


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> I don’t see what the point your trying to make here is? Our dress regs are designed to make us look like professional, well put together people from 1950, 70 years later we’re adjusting that to make us look like professional well put together people from 2020. Are people going to take advantage initially? Probably but that’s why we have NCOs to enforce standards; the standard is now just a bit more nuanced.



 I agree with you people will take advantage of it and push the limits. I'm probably going to think some people look pretty goofy if they push the limits of what's allowed but whatever. I look just as goofy to others I'm sure. 

Maybe dyed hair and face tattos are more prevelent than I realize. Doesn't really matter, I just don't think it's as common and accepted as the military is all of a sudden telling everyone is. I'm still a little suspect about the CAFs motives. 

On a side note enforcing standards isn't solely an NCO thing anymore than enforcing discipline is an NCO thing. 




> One is in marketing and advertisement, another works as a mechanical engineer for Finning, a couple are EMTs. Hell my sister had half her head shaved with a purple streak in it and is a committee clerk for a provincial legislature.


Again good examples.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (23 Jul 2022)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> James Bond disarmed a nuclear bomb dressed as a clown once (Octopussy).


EOD has entered the chat.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> We aren’t Japan. People with dyed hair, tattoos, and piercings work as doctors, business professionals, EMTs, and everything in between. I don’t really know what you mean by “alternative groups,” but I’m assuming this is your second hand opinion.


Until 2019 I worked in regulatory review covering a large diverse group of industries. Once you get to a certain level of management, you see very little in the way of tattoos or multi-coloured hair. Government is more accepting as they have to be, businesses are not except at the floor level. You better be really really good to get away with it at the higher levels. My teenage daughters hang out with some of the alternative kids, most are nice, but a bit messed up, a bunch just going through a stage like my daughters are doing.


----------



## lenaitch (23 Jul 2022)

I've ever quite understood those who join a, for want of a better term, 'homogenizing' organization then expect that their individuality should shine through.  It's not the member's image that is at stake, it's the organization's.  They have changed the rules. I hope they are right in their assessment.

In law enforcement, pretty much everybody quietly toes the line at the recruit and probationary stage.  Once members get more confidence and experience, some start to walk away from the line.  Some channel that into being some of the finest u/c and investigative personal you can find; others spend the rest of their career being a low output organizational PITA.

*****

I don't care if he is the best damned appliance repair guy in town, he ain't getting through my front door to fix my stove:


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> We aren’t Japan. People with dyed hair, tattoos, and piercings work as doctors, business professionals, EMTs, and everything in between. I don’t really know what you mean by “alternative groups,” but I’m assuming this is your second hand opinion.


----------



## FSTO (24 Jul 2022)

If the new dress regulations cause people to get their pants, shirts, and tunics properly fitted and tailored I’m all for it.


----------



## btrudy (24 Jul 2022)

FSTO said:


> If the new dress regulations cause people to get their pants, shirts, and tunics properly fitted and tailored I’m all for it.



Hah, the base tailor shops can barely handle rank changes, expecting them to be able to get everyone actually wearing properly fitted clothing is a pipe dream.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Until 2019 I worked in regulatory review covering a large diverse group of industries. Once you get to a certain level of management, you see very little in the way of tattoos or multi-coloured hair. Government is more accepting as they have to be, businesses are not except at the floor level. You better be really really good to get away with it at the higher levels. My teenage daughters hang out with some of the alternative kids, most are nice, but a bit messed up, a bunch just going through a stage like my daughters are doing.


My spouse works in Finance.  She has sleeve tattoos but do you think she wears a cardigan with a dress and covers them?  You betcha!

When she was younger and was still bartending she also had a tongue and nose ring.  Do you think those are still there now that she works in Finance?  😉


----------



## FSTO (24 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> Hah, the base tailor shops can barely handle rank changes, expecting them to be able to get everyone actually wearing properly fitted clothing is a pipe dream.


They get the clothes for free, spend a few bucks and take them to a tailor y’a cheap bastards! I tailor the shirts myself. 

But that’s the Canadian way isn’t it? Being cheap, ineffective and look like a sack of shit all at the same time.


----------



## lenaitch (24 Jul 2022)

Edward Campbell said:


> View attachment 72153


It doesn't say what line of work he does but it is entirely possible because prospective employers are (a) questioning his judgement (as am I), and/or (b) don't see him as projecting their corporate image.  Human nature is funny like that.  Shoulda thought of that beforehand.

Maybe he should apply for a government job.


----------



## TacticalTea (24 Jul 2022)

FSTO said:


> They get the clothes for free, spend a few bucks and take them to a tailor y’a cheap bastards! I tailor the shirts myself.
> 
> But that’s the Canadian way isn’t it? Being cheap, ineffective and look like a sack of shit all at the same time.


That's what I do as well. Got tired of looking like a potato all the time.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (24 Jul 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> That's what I do as well. Got tired of looking like a potato all the time.


Same.

The material, cut, and quality of DEUs are absolute shit as they are; might as well not compound the issue by not getting them properly fitted.


----------



## mariomike (24 Jul 2022)

Edward Campbell said:


> View attachment 72153



Probably best to wait until after the interview and probation.


----------



## btrudy (24 Jul 2022)

FSTO said:


> They get the clothes for free, spend a few bucks and take them to a tailor y’a cheap bastards! I tailor the shirts myself.
> 
> But that’s the Canadian way isn’t it? Being cheap, ineffective and look like a sack of shit all at the same time.



I refuse to pay my own money to subsidize the Crown's failures. If the system is gonna give me stuff that doesn't fit well, then so be it. Fix the system, don't expect the member to pay themselves to solve the CAF's problems.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> I refuse to pay my own money to subsidize the Crown's failures. If the system is gonna give me stuff that doesn't fit well, then so be it. Fix the system, don't expect the member to pay themselves to solve the CAF's problems.


Not much you will do, is there??
You'd best stay in the CAF,....I have my doubts any civi employer would put up with you.


----------



## FSTO (24 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> I refuse to pay my own money to subsidize the Crown's failures. If the system is gonna give me stuff that doesn't fit well, then so be it. Fix the system, don't expect the member to pay themselves to solve the CAF's problems.


Why am I not surprised with your response. You are one of the types who won't do a damn thing extra than just your job. Got it, wallow in your self-righteousness and I hope I never have the displeasure to be forced to be in your presence.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jul 2022)

FSTO said:


> If the new dress regulations cause people to get their pants, shirts, and tunics properly fitted and tailored I’m all for it.


Sorry, best we can do is purple hair. Next up, pronouns on your nametags/name tapes.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> Excuse me? What I do is my god damned actual job. With a focus on what actually matters, unlike half the folks on this thread who seems to think that buttons and bows and the fit of a poorly made tunic are the most important things in the world.
> 
> Surprisingly, what I'm not doing is trying to win over a forum infested and managed by sanctimonious pricks like yourself.


You barely comment on any of the technical issues facing the CAF and it's members. I don't see much in your posting history about the condition of our ships, planes, tanks, lack of artillery, radios, radar or lack of bridging equipment. I suggest that you have more credibility if you opine on a wider range of subjects.


----------



## btrudy (24 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> You barely comment on any of the technical issues facing the CAF and it's members. I don't see much in your posting history about the condition of our ships, planes, tanks, lack of artillery, radios, radar or lack of bridging equipment. I suggest that you have more credibility if you opine on a wider range of subjects.


I don't find discussing those issues interesting. The material state of our materiel is well known, and largely isn't a technical issue at all, but a matter of political will / resource allocation. Endlessly discussing how all our stuff's broken and isn't going to get fixed is a bit too sisyphean for my tastes.

Culture change is at least a topic where there's interesting things actually happening.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Jul 2022)

> In fact, this is a movie we’ve seen before. *The unification of the Navy, Army and Air Force in 1968 was another grand experiment in social engineering in the military setting.* Defence Minister Hellyer’s stated objective was not just to eliminate duplication and save money, but also to establish Canada (and thus himself) as a “leader” among the world’s militaries. In Nov. 1966, he was quoted as saying that unification would “provide the flexibility to enable Canada to meet in the most effective manner the military requirements of the future. _It will also establish Canada as an unquestionable leader in the field of military organization_” (my emphasis). [Quoted in L. Milberry, _Sixty Years: The RCAF and CF Air Command 1924–1984_. Canav Books, p. 367.]
> 
> *Reading this statement now seems laughable. But in light of most professional military opinion at the time, it also seems like the worst sort of political hubris*. Canada is no more seen as “an unquestionable leader” in military organization than we are in the field of military procurement. And, frankly, the history of our Armed Forces since 1968 has largely been one of trying to _undo_ the harm wrought by Mr. Hellyer and his protégés. But the real problem with Hellyer’s unification project wasn’t the idea itself. Rather, it was the fact that no evaluative criteria — and thus, no easy off-ramp if it wasn’t working — were built into the scheme. But that’s what typically happens when the military is used as a guinea pig for social engineering.











						Diversity at Any Cost
					

Canada’s Defence Leaders Misunderstand the ‘Problem’ of Tradition. The new approach assumes that dress regulations are designed to make the individual member a better clerk, or cook, or technician. But they weren’t. What they were intended to do was to signal one’s willingness to submit to...




					www.dorchesterreview.ca


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> What I do is my god damned actual job. With a focus on what actually matters,
> unlike half the folks on this thread who seems to think that buttons and bows and the fit of a poorly made tunic are the most important things in the world.
> Surprisingly, what I'm not doing is trying to win over a forum infested and managed by sanctimonious pricks like yourself.



You've managed to squeeze in some stereotyping, macroagressions, and a strawman while seemingly being intolerant of other people's opinions. Impressive.


----------



## btrudy (24 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> You've managed to squeeze in some stereotyping, macroagressions, and a strawman while seemingly being intolerant of other people's opinions.


Oh cry me a fucking river. God forbid I react poorly against unjustified personal insults by a god damned moderator of this forum. 

Jesus it's no wonder this place has such a terrible reputation.


----------



## Kilted (24 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> I refuse to pay my own money to subsidize the Crown's failures. If the system is gonna give me stuff that doesn't fit well, then so be it. Fix the system, don't expect the member to pay themselves to solve the CAF's problems.


Last time I got a new DEU jacket, I had to pay $70 out if pocket to get the badges sewn on because the only tailor that Brigade had retired. It was normally a four or five month turnaround anyways. I remember when the Div patches came out and they took everyone's DEU jackets a couple months before Remembrance Day and put out am order that no one would wear DEU for Remembrance Day.


----------



## Kilted (24 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> Jesus it's no wonder this place has such a terrible reputation.


I'm just going to come out and say that that statement is very offensive to Christians.


----------



## btrudy (24 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> Last time I got a new DEU jacket, I had to pay $70 out if pocket to get the badges sewn on because the only tailor that Brigade had retired. It was normally a four or five month turnaround anyways. I remember when the Div patches came out and they took everyone's DEU jackets a couple months before Remembrance Day and put out am order that no one would wear DEU for Remembrance Day.



And by doing so, you propped up the system yourself, with your own money. And thereby reduced any requirement that the nice folks who are in charge of allocating resources in order to fix problems like this would have otherwise had to do so. If you can't show up with a DEU tunic because there isn't a tailor, that'll highlight the problem; if you fix it on your own, then problem solved, no reason for the CAF / DND to bother.

You gotta let the system fail sometimes, otherwise our glorious leaders aren't going to bother fixing what's broken.

And this is especially important when it comes to the leadership aspect. If you're going out there and setting the expectation for all your personnel that *they* should be paying themselves to fix the CAF's problems, well then hell you might as well just be stealing money out of their wallet.


----------



## FSTO (24 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> Oh cry me a fucking river. God forbid I react poorly against unjustified personal insults by a god damned moderator of this forum.
> 
> Jesus it's no wonder this place has such a terrible reputation.


Then GTFO if you hate it here.


----------



## btrudy (24 Jul 2022)

FSTO said:


> Then GTFO if you hate it here.



What, and leave the place even more of an echo chamber?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Jul 2022)

Common folks, lets not insult each other.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (24 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> What, and leave the place even more of an echo chamber?


This place is far from an echo chamber.

I don't agree with half the opinions expressed here and have countered with my own thoughts and opinions in a respectful manner. Sometimes people are swayed, a lot of times I get another rebuttal. If I glean more that I can comment on, the discussion  keeps moving forward. Sometimes it moves along or I leave because it's not worth the time and effort.

That is debate and constructive communication. I am not compelled to stay in the argument any more than I am to start one.

Your posts have been thought-provoking for me, I will admit it. You have brought forward important parts of the discussion and have brought some perspective that is refreshing.

Here is the issue:

You have come off as abrasive and hostile whenever you are met with an opinion that runs counter to yours. You make accusations and point fingers vice taking an opinion in at face value and countering those opinions with facts or experience.

I have learned a lot here by keeping my mouth shut. I have also learned sometimes it's better to realise your opinion or point of view is not getting through and to walk away. I can't change people opinions or thoughts any more than I can ensure there are jalapeño poppers in the Mess on Friday.

I value your opinion here just as much as anyone else participating in the discussion. I don't agree with it all the time, nor do I expect I will agree with everyone on here or anyone to value my ramblings either.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:
			
		

> Jesus it's no wonder this place has such a terrible reputation.



And there it is 😎


----------



## btrudy (24 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> You have come off as abrasive and hostile whenever you are met with an opinion that runs counter to yours. You make accusations and point fingers vice taking an opinion in at face value and countering those opinions with facts or experience.
> 
> I have learned a lot here by keeping my mouth shut. I have also learned sometimes it's better to realise your opinion or point of view is not getting through and to walk away. I can't change people opinions or thoughts any more than I can ensure there are jalapeño poppers in the Mess on Friday.
> 
> I value your opinion here just as much as anyone else participating in the discussion. I don't agree with it all the time, nor do I expect I will agree with everyone on here or anyone to value my ramblings either.



C'mon. I made a comment about how I refuse to personally pay for tailoring that the Crown should be paying for, and in response I got a forum moderator telling me that there's "not much that I will do" and that I'd be worthless in civilian employment, and a senior officer telling me that he hoped that he'd never be in the same room as me. You can't pretend that those are reasonable or proportionate responses.

Yes, you may have noticed me being angry in posts somewhat, but I get a hell of a lot more than I dish out in terms of hostility. I'd humbly suggest that you're far more likely to notice when I punch back simply because it's a crowd of people being hostile to me, and then me being hostile back to the crowd in response.

This is of course what will happen when you have only a few dissenters in what is otherwise an echo chamber. That's literally how an echo chamber is created; by the dominate crowd driving out those who disagree.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> I don't find discussing those issues interesting. The material state of our materiel is well known, and largely isn't a technical issue at all, but a matter of political will / resource allocation. Endlessly discussing how all our stuff's broken and isn't going to get fixed is a bit too sisyphean for my tastes.
> 
> Culture change is at least a topic where there's interesting things actually happening.


Yet giving your views on those issues will help you establish a reputation of one that has looked at the whole picture and not a slice of the pie. Not to mention a idea about your knowledge base and experience.
At this point your looking like a one trick pony and that does not help your arguments. We get a lot of people come here with Joan of Arc attitude on one particular issue and it generally does not end well as the result is that person ends up making personal attacks which eventually results in them leaving or being banned. I am not trying to attack you, but making an observation that might be of assistance to you.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> This is of course what will happen when you have only a few dissenters in what is otherwise an echo chamber. That's literally how an echo chamber is created; by the dominate crowd driving out those who disagree.


Further to my post, is that if you read posts on other subjects, you will find we are often in violent disagreement with each other. A number of the navy people and people like myself argue a great deal about Navy attitudes to arming non-frigate vessel and I am a proponent of giving the PRes new M119 105mm so they have something to work with, which quite a few people disagree with. these are just a couple of examples. I have yet to meet a hive mind on this forum.


----------



## markppcli (24 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> And there it is 😎


Wait, do you not think army.ca has a bad reputation?  Like I’m sorry I come here for a couple interesting conversations but the prevailing attitudes here are pretty clear. Which is fine it’s also why I typically avoid the culture conversations here. 

The fact that Mods on here are willing to insult members is… problematic. To say the least. Regarding the echo chamber, there are maybe two dissenting opinions on this thread. A dozen or more pages ago some one mentioned how users here come from a broad spectrum. I’d be stunned if at 36 I wasn’t one of the youngest here, and I’m aware of maybe one female member. Anyways none of this really matters what’s happening is happening.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> C'mon. I made a comment about how I refuse to personally pay for tailoring that the Crown should be paying for, and in response I got a forum moderator telling me that there's "not much that I will do" and that I'd be worthless in civilian employment, and a senior officer telling me that he hoped that he'd never be in the same room as me. You can't pretend that those are reasonable or proportionate responses.
> 
> Yes, you may have noticed me being angry in posts somewhat, but I get a hell of a lot more than I dish out in terms of hostility. I'd humbly suggest that you're far more likely to notice when I punch back simply because it's a crowd of people being hostile to me, and then me being hostile back to the crowd in response.
> 
> This is of course what will happen when you have only a few dissenters in what is otherwise an echo chamber. That's literally how an echo chamber is created; by the dominate crowd driving out those who disagree.


You'll notice that nobody has driven you out.  You'll also notice that unlike other social media platforms (e.g. CAF Reddit) we don't usually lock threads here and allow everyone to post their thoughts freely.  I didn't even edit your posts for the profanities; however, you need to do your best to conform to site guidelines like everyone else.  

If you're unhappy with a post made, message a member of the staff directly or report the post using the report function.  

Swearing at people isn't a good way to get your message across and is a violation of the site guidelines.


----------



## FSTO (24 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> , and a senior officer telling me that he hoped that he'd never be in the same room as me.


I routinely do more than what is expected of me and that includes paying a little bit of out of pocket money to look presentable. I’ve worked with guys like you and it’s not a rewarding experience for me or for the rest of the crew.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> Wait, do you not think army.ca has a bad reputation?  Like I’m sorry I come here for a couple interesting conversations but the prevailing attitudes here are pretty clear. Which is fine it’s also why I typically avoid the culture conversations here.
> 
> The fact that Mods on here are willing to insult members is… problematic. To say the least. Regarding the echo chamber, there are maybe two dissenting opinions on this thread. A dozen or more pages ago some one mentioned how users here come from a broad spectrum. I’d be stunned if at 36 I wasn’t one of the youngest here, and I’m aware of maybe one female member. Anyways none of this really matters what’s happening is happening.


Who do you think locks more threads and police's participants more?  Us or other platforms?

I 100% guarantee other platforms like Reddit have way more stringent rules and lock way more threads.  CAF Reddit is great for shit talking and memes but pretty low on actual substance and in depth conversations relevant to the profession of arms.

I know we allow more debate because I am also a member of other platforms where CAF members and former members comment 😉


----------



## markppcli (24 Jul 2022)

FSTO said:


> I routinely do more than what is expected of me and that includes paying a little bit of out of pocket money to look presentable. I’ve worked with guys like you and it’s not a rewarding experience for me or for the rest of the crew.


And I think he makes a valid argument that supplementing the militaries failures out of pocket creates an expectation that this can be relied on instead of the system. It reminds me of when my driver had to buy a ratchet set to keep the LAV going. Did it do the job, ye sof course, but the problem was now we were good to go off the back of our members bank accounts.


----------



## markppcli (24 Jul 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Who do you think locks more threads and police's participants more?  Us or other platforms?
> 
> I 100% guarantee other platforms like Reddit have way more stringent rules and lock way more threads.  CAF Reddit is great for shit talking and memes but pretty low on actual substance and in depth conversations relevant to the profession of arms.
> 
> I know we allow more debate because I am also a member of other platforms where CAF members and former members comment 😉


Oh you guys let a lot more go; for example the member on here who said the majority of trans people would be worthless to the CAF didn’t even get a warning from what I can tell. I digress.

Yeah I come here for talks about structure and equipment, and frankly the CAF subreddit has become something of a quagmire of negativity. I laughed pretty hard when they started talking about MCpls as “higher.” Anyways I was merely pointing out some realities and perspective.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (24 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> C'mon. I made a comment about how I refuse to personally pay for tailoring that the Crown should be paying for, and in response I got a forum moderator telling me that there's "not much that I will do" and that I'd be worthless in civilian employment, and a senior officer telling me that he hoped that he'd never be in the same room as me. You can't pretend that those are reasonable or proportionate responses.


I did not say they were, nor do I feel they are accurate portrayals of your ability/aptitude. They were, however, forming the opinion based on the _attitude_ in which you presented your argument.  

Hell I think it is bull shit that I have to go get my own uniform tailored, in addition to being forced to own mess kit and buy shoe polish; I still am going to do them because they're the price of admission. I didn't throw up my hands and say "screw that, I'm never going to pay out of pocket for something the Crown should be providing."



btrudy said:


> Yes, you may have noticed me being angry in posts somewhat, but I get a hell of a lot more than I dish out in terms of hostility. I'd humbly suggest that you're far more likely to notice when I punch back simply because it's a crowd of people being hostile to me, and then me being hostile back to the crowd in response.


Hostility begets hostility. It's been addressed further up the avenues to take if there is an issue. Hell I get warnings and cross lines on here and I get roped back into the community guidelines like any else. 



btrudy said:


> This is of course what will happen when you have only a few dissenters in what is otherwise an echo chamber. That's literally how an echo chamber is created; by the dominate crowd driving out those who disagree.


I agree, however, there is not backing down and there is also trying to sell ice to a polar bear; sometimes, you aren't going to reach people. Your opinions are sometimes set further in stone than some of those dissenting to them. It happens. We all need to disengage at times when we're no longer making head way.


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Jul 2022)

It’s not a new phenomenon (do doo do doo doo). When garrison dress came out, the belt had a perfectly adequate plastic buckle. Guess which other buckle fit the belt properly? The $20 (in 1988 dollars) metal branch/corps/regimental buckles that it was strongly suggested we buy. Guess who’s names appeared magically on the weekend duty list if they had a plastic buckle on their belt. Go on, guess. It’s easy!


----------



## btrudy (24 Jul 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> It’s not a new phenomenon (do doo do doo doo). When garrison dress came out, the belt had a perfectly adequate plastic buckle. Guess which other buckle fit the belt properly? The $20 (in 1988 dollars) metal branch/corps/regimental buckles that it was strongly suggested we buy. Guess who’s names appeared magically on the weekend duty list if they had a plastic buckle on their belt. Go on, guess. It’s easy!



The military has seen fit to create an entire L1 organization devoted to culture change. Why? Because even at the highest levels they're acknowledging that many aspects of military culture are fundamentally broken, and inherently toxic. This is a good example of exactly what it is that we need to fix.

No, it's not new. It is, however, *wrong*. Poor policies and terrible leadership don't become better just because you keep doing them for a long enough period of time.


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> The military has seen fit to create an entire L1 organization devoted to culture change. Why? Because even at the highest levels they're acknowledging that many aspects of military culture are fundamentally broken, and inherently toxic. This is a good example of exactly what it is that we need to fix.
> 
> No, it's not new. It is, however, *wrong*. Poor policies and terrible leadership don't become better just because you keep doing them for a long enough period of time.


Well now I just feel terrible about myself. I’m going to have to climb into my hammock with a six pack of beer and some Queensryche in the earbuds and reflect on my role in degrading the armed forces. Thank you for this moment of clarity. Truly.


----------



## markppcli (24 Jul 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Well now I just feel terrible about myself. I’m going to have to climb into my hammock with a six pack of beer and reflect on my role in degrading the armed forces. Thank you for this moment of clarity. Truly.


Where did he say that? He just pointed out using duties to putatively “encourage” people to spend out of pocket on a belt is probably not the culture we ought to strive for. Especially when that clothing item isn’t mandated in the dress regulations, that’s a senior NCO applying a standard in their own, to the financial detriment of their troops.

I’d read the “you” in their comment as a global, organizational “you,” vice a personal you.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jul 2022)

[





markppcli said:


> Wait, do you not think army.ca has a bad reputation?


Oh I know, I've seen it. I've also seen some people passing on that army.ca baaaad mantra haven't even registered here, just regurgitate what they see other people say. Real followes seeking approval. 



> The fact that Mods on here are willing to insult members is… problematic.


Insult them back. 



> Regarding the echo chamber, there are maybe two dissenting opinions on this thread.


That happens. If you do some looking you'll find Liberal posters, and people who openly talk about voting liberal. No one calls them names. 

You'll also see pro-life opinions. This is probably one of the few places where you'll see a cordial pro life/pro choice debate without people spazzing out. 



> I’d be stunned if at 36 I wasn’t one of the youngest here


See my previous comments.


----------



## markppcli (24 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> [
> Oh I know, I've seen it. I've also seen some people passing on that army.ca baaaad mantra haven't even registered here, just regurgitate what they see other people say. Real followes seeking approval.
> 
> 
> ...


Insult them back - truly the road map to polite, intelligent discourse.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jul 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Well now I just feel terrible about myself. I’m going to have to climb into my hammock with a six pack of beer and some Queensryche in the earbuds and reflect on my role in degrading the armed forces. Thank you for this moment of clarity. Truly.


Earbuds for your yellow Sony anti-skip CD Walkman.


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> Where did he say that? He just pointed out using duties to putatively “encourage” people to spend out of pocket on a belt is probably not the culture we ought to strive for. Especially when that clothing item isn’t mandated in the dress regulations, that’s a senior NCO applying a standard in their own, to the financial detriment of their troops.


Clearly you weren’t there. An SNCO? You need to aim several tiers of bossdome higher when it came to making these kind of calls. As an aside, you need to unwind your panties a bit. If you can’t tell when someone is having a bit of fun here, it may be time to put your applicable brain leaching device beyond arms reach for a while.


----------



## markppcli (24 Jul 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Clearly you weren’t there. An SNCO? You need to aim several tiers of bossdome higher when it came to making these kind of calls. As an aside, you need to unwind your panties a bit. If you can’t tell when someone is having a bit of fun here, it may be time to put your applicable brain leaching device beyond arms reach for a while.


Sure, that’s about as reasonable a response as the last one. I’m just going what you described, but hey clearly being mad at people on the internet is what getting you through your day so enjoy that.


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> Sure, that’s about as reasonable a response as the last one. I’m just going what you described, but hey clearly being mad at people on the internet is what getting you through your day so enjoy that.


Mad at you?? I don’t give enough of a shit about you to be mad at you. I’m having some fun, you do you.


----------



## markppcli (24 Jul 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Mad at you?? I don’t give enough of a shit about you to be mad at you. I’m having some fun, you do you.


Yeah you use insulting language, have a little pout, seem very calm.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> Oh you guys let a lot more go; for example the member on here who said the majority of trans people would be worthless to the CAF didn’t even get a warning from what I can tell. I digress.
> 
> Yeah I come here for talks about structure and equipment, and frankly the CAF subreddit has become something of a quagmire of negativity. I laughed pretty hard when they started talking about MCpls as “higher.” Anyways I was merely pointing out some realities and perspective.


You will note I said that they are not worth actively pursuing and if someone who identifies as Trans applies, they should go through the same process as everyone else. I stand by my statement that based on medical studies that purposely recruiting a larger number will impact on the military healthcare system and lessen the ability of the CAF to be able to go out and fight either a conventional, Peacekeeping or COIN type operation. So exactly what should I get a warning about?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Jul 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Not much you will do, is there??
> You'd best stay in the CAF,....I have my doubts any civi employer would put up with you.


My post was harsh, and especially since being a Mod I'm supposed to be better, but please tell me where a bank/restaurant/ car sales would let you come in in short shorts and a ripped t-shirt and say " We not spending our money on looking good for you".   You would be gone......dispute that please.


----------



## markppcli (24 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> You will note I said that they are not worth actively pursuing and if someone who identifies as Trans applies, they should go through the same process as everyone else. I stand by my statement that based on medical studies that purposely recruiting a larger number will impact on the military healthcare system and lessen the ability of the CAF to be able to go out and fight either a conventional, Peacekeeping or COIN type operation. So exactly what should I get a warning about?


Well what you said was this 
“ I also be blunt and say that the majority of trans people I have met are not worth the logistical and mental health costs to actively recruit.”
 If you said “we shouldn’t recruit people with medical / mental health issues” I’d agree. We shouldn’t take on those costs. But you didn’t, you reached out specifically for trans people for some reason; and implied that they’re worth was lower than others. That kinda of thinking, and talk doesn’t fly in the CAF anymore. The fact that the only person to hold that language to account was actually the subject of ten pages of being called a bigot himself is a fine example of why we need a culture change. All that being said I’m well aware I’m not going to change you, or anyone else’s thinking on this.


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Jul 2022)

I’d pay good money to see you in booty shorts, Monkhouse.


----------



## markppcli (24 Jul 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> My post was harsh, and especially since being a Mod I'm supposed to be better, but please tell me where a bank/restaurant/ car sales would let you come in in short shorts and a ripped t-shirt and say " We not spending our money on looking good for you".   You would be gone......dispute that please.


That’s a disingenuous, a bank won’t tell you to wear an exact piece of clothing only available from one source, with a very specific set of parameters for its wear. We expect people to dress to an exacting standar in the clothing we issue them, we ought to be able to deliver on that. That being said I always take my stuff to a tailor personally, I just ball at the idea that someone refusing to makes them a bad soldier / person.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Jul 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> I’d pay good money to see you in booty shorts, Monkhouse.


I saw a pic today just like that playing VB in Gagetown.  Lucky for you its too dark to really see......today I'd have to decide what side to tuck the boys into.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> That’s a disingenuous, a bank won’t tell you to wear an exact piece of clothing only available from one source, with a very specific set of parameters for its wear. We expect people to dress to an exacting standar in the clothing we issue them, we ought to be able to deliver on that. That being said I always take my stuff to a tailor personally, I just ball at the idea that someone refusing to makes them a bad soldier / person.


And you missed the point totally,....you PAY for those clothes you're wearing at the bank,....and they still get to enforce dress and deportment.  My point from the start...


----------



## markppcli (24 Jul 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> And you missed the point totally,....you PAY for those clothes you're wearing at the bank,....and they still get to enforce dress and deportment.  My point from the start...


And you missed my point; if we force you to wear X, in a way no bank ever could, and only X then we ought to provide the services required for it.

I’ll give an example, an ex of mine worked for Fairmont at the Hotel McDonald. It had an exact outfit you were to wear if you worked front desk. In order to ensure it’s care they provided the laundry servicing and tailoring to make sure their front desk presented the correct image.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> The fact that the only person to hold that language to account was actually the subject of ten pages of being called a bigot himself



Mark you seem like a nice guy but you also seem like you have a serious case of selective memory. 

Why don't you go back and see who started the whole bigot thing.


----------



## markppcli (24 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Mark you seem like a nice guy but you also seem like you have a serious case of selective memory.
> 
> Why don't you go back and see who started the whole bigot thing.


Saying “trans people aren’t worth x” is a bigoted statement. Doesn’t mean the speaker is inherently a bigot, just that they have some perspectives. Calling out that comment as bigoted and then being attacked for it is exactly what happened. Frankly anyone that’s still in the CAF and was part of that exchange should try hard to remember the bystander training they clicked through.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> That’s a disingenuous, a bank won’t tell you to wear an exact piece of clothing only available from one source, with a very specific set of parameters for its wear. We expect people to dress to an exacting standar in the clothing we issue them, we ought to be able to deliver on that. That being said I always take my stuff to a tailor personally, I just ball at the idea that someone refusing to makes them a bad soldier / person.


There are some industries where there is indeed an expected standard of uniform-like dress and one isn’t reimbursed the cost of suits/ties/shirts/shoes/etc. and the cost isn’t insignificant.  Any money I spent in the CAF for either consumables (like polish) or some servicing/alterations to issued clothing to make it fit more professionally, particularly when interacting with public (Govt or citizens) pales to the (does some quick math…) thousands and thousands (probably into 5-digits) invested for conducting work in private industry.

Should issued uniforms fit properly and the CAF member not be out of pocket by an impactful amount? Yes.  That said, holding stocks in half-inch increments to ensure as modification-free issue as possible likely isn’t the answer either. There needs to be a reasonable mid-ground where the majority of the costs are borne by the organization, but modest cost by the member, _if they do chose to optimize their appearance_, isn’t unreasonable.


----------



## markppcli (24 Jul 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> There are some industries where there is indeed an expected standard of uniform-like dress and one isn’t reimbursed the cost of suits/ties/shirts/shoes/etc. and the cost isn’t insignificant.  Any money I spent in the CAF for either consumables (like polish) or some servicing/alterations to issued clothing to make it fit more professionally, particularly when interacting with public (Govt or citizens) pales to the (does some quick math…) thousands and thousands (probably into 5-digits) invested for conducting work in private industry.
> 
> Should issued uniforms fit properly and the CAF member not be out of pocket by an impactful amount? Yes.  That said, holding stocks in half-inch increments to ensure as modification-free issue as possible likely isn’t the answer either. There needs to be a reasonable mid-ground where the majority of the costs are borne by the organization, but modest cost by the member, _if they do chose to optimize their appearance_, isn’t unreasonable.



I agree, my point was about some one saying the other member was a bad soldier / person / unemployable because they were unwilling to spend the money to have their DEUs tailored when base tailors exist.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jul 2022)

> “trans people aren’t worth x”



Which statement was it?  Were they in effect called worthless, or was the statement in effect that it wasn't worthwhile to actively recruit them?

Some stuff is done at own expense.  Haircuts.  Polish and associated tools.  Cleaning.  Insignia addition and removal, when access to a tailor was inconvenient for some folks and turnaround was ... slow.  Yes, there's a lot of peer pressure to go beyond issue stuff.  I suppose some people don't sweat the small sh!t and some lose their sh!t over it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> I agree, my point was about some one saying the other member was a bad soldier / person / unemployable because they were unwilling to spend the money to have their DEUs tailored when base tailors exist.


Yea,...that all came about from one post that person made,....of course it did.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> Saying “trans people aren’t worth x” is a bigoted statement.


For the sake of argument can you show me the source for the definition of bigot you're using?


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> I agree, my point was about some one saying the other member was a bad soldier / person / unemployable because they were unwilling to spend the money to have their DEUs tailored when base tailors exist.


I agree and will give @btrudy the point that at least they have made the conscious decision not to personally invest more in their issue uniform because the CAF should provide something 100%. That’s a personal choice, and one I don’t necessarily disagree with…in a perfect world. And at least it is a logical principled choice, as opposed to some members who couldn’t be bothered to look good in a uniform (even without spending any of their own money), because they couldn’t be bothered to at least get the ‘least ill-fitting’ issue clothing available.


----------



## markppcli (24 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> For the sake of argument can you show me the source for the definition of bigot you're using?


a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.


----------



## markppcli (24 Jul 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Yea,...that all came about from one post that person made,....of course it did.


Look, you’re the moderator. It’s your job to set the tone of discussion. Do you think this comment is really the tone we ought to take here ?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (24 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> I’d be stunned if at 36 I wasn’t one of the youngest here, and I’m aware of maybe one female member. Anyways none of this really matters what’s happening is happening.


I'm a year younger than you 😉

Was a member of the Armed Forces since 2004.  I was recruited as a "Hillier Youth".

I released four weeks ago 😁


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jul 2022)

> because they couldn’t be bothered to at least get the ‘least ill-fitting’ issue clothing available



Always a challenge in the Res F.  I remember watching the supply person at CFS Lolo pawing through stacks of used combats to equip me for SYEP.  From a little later in time, I remember my first parade boots - both same size, but different sole pattern, just enough to notice when wearing them.  I remember my first DEU jacket being "close enough".


----------



## markppcli (24 Jul 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I'm a year younger than you 😉
> 
> Was a member of the Armed Forces since 2004.  I was recruited as a "Hillier Youth".
> 
> I released four weeks ago 😁


Ah that’s just your first release, give it time trust me.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> Look, you’re the moderator. It’s your job to set the tone of discussion. Do you think this comment is really the tone we ought to take here ?


I'm confused ......where the heck are we going now??


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jul 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> I'm confused ......where the heck are we going now??


Probably to PM if there's still an issue so we can stay on topic?


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.



Thanks, that's what I seen pop up too.

Obstinately-_stubbornly adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion_

I believe someone posted sources highlighting the increased medical requirements and increased mental health issues with trans memebers. Hard to say Colin's opinion was in spite of reason when he's arguing the science of the issue.

Unreasonably-_ in a way that is not guided by or based on good sense._

Same thing. He's not being unreasonable, he's basing his opinion off something quantitative. There is also the context of "actively" which seems to have been overlooked. 

The bigger problem is calling people bigots when the author of the comment cannot differentiate between an uncomfortable or unpopular opinion and true bigotry per the defined dictionary definition. It becomes cancel culture very easily.


----------



## FSTO (24 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> I agree, my point was about some one saying the other member was a bad soldier / person / unemployable because they were unwilling to spend the money to have their DEUs tailored when base tailors exist.


Hmm, I may have to walk back my comment a bit. But I’ll maintain that folks who pull “I don’t do anything more than my job description” are ones I never expect to surprise me with going the extra mile to achieve a collective goal.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> The bigger problem is calling people bigots when the author of the comment cannot differentiate between an uncomfortable or unpopular opinion and true bigotry per the defined dictionary definition. It becomes cancel culture very easily.


You are wise for one so young  - well put.


----------



## btrudy (24 Jul 2022)

FSTO said:


> Hmm, I may have to walk back my comment a bit. But I’ll maintain that folks who pull “I don’t do anything more than my job description” are ones I never expect to surprise me with going the extra mile to achieve a collective goal.



I don't think I'm alone in being selective about which things I'll "go the extra mile for". I save that for things I consider important, and how well a uniform that I'd never actually choose to wear if I had a choice fits generally isn't one of them. The CAF as a whole has largely put too much emphasis on aesthetics, to a degree that it detracts from our actual mandates IMHO.


----------



## FSTO (24 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> I don't think I'm alone in being selective about which things I'll "go the extra mile for". I save that for things I consider important, and how well a uniform that I'd never actually choose to wear if I had a choice fits generally isn't one of them. The CAF as a whole has largely put too much emphasis on aesthetics, to a degree that it detracts from our actual mandates IMHO.


I control what I can control, my appearance, how my decisions affect the officers and sailors in my ship/station, how my staff work is received by my peers and superiors. I cannot control what directives come out of the Minister’s, CDS, and or CRCN offices I can only follow them to the best of my ability.


----------



## TacticalTea (24 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> Saying “trans people aren’t worth x” is a bigoted statement. Doesn’t mean the speaker is inherently a bigot, just that they have some perspectives. Calling out that comment as bigoted and then being attacked for it is exactly what happened. Frankly anyone that’s still in the CAF and was part of that exchange should try hard to remember the bystander training they clicked through.


Why? I made the same point when somebody else said it, but if you're gonna say it's bigoted, you ought to explain why. You can't just go around cancelling people and thoughts because they ''feel'' wrong.

Edit: Wowzer, this thread is rolling fast. Someone already made this point and got an answer before I pressed ''post reply''.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Jul 2022)

If any of you think that you're not judged by your appearance in a uniform you are sadly mistaken. Civvies can see the wrinkled DEU or disheveled slovenly appearance.


----------



## TacticalTea (24 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> If any of you think that you're not judged by your appearance in a uniform you are sadly mistaken. Civvies can see the wrinkled DEU or disheveled slovenly appearance.


Great point.

The things that Chiefs have typically lost their minds about - badges in the wrong spots, medals in the wrong order, not wearing a hat, imperfect hair, imperfect shoes - are, funnily enough, not the things that members would be negatively judged upon. The latter, being more noticeable to non-military folks, would be fashion fails like oversized jackets, awfully fitted shirts, and tight pants that squeeze your ass and package into disturbingly suggestive forms. 

Those will make you look ridiculous to the uninitiated. So will some funny styles that'll come out of HAIRFORGEN, yet those will also be met with a shrug as they won't be in violation of policy anymore.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Jul 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Great point.
> 
> The things that Chiefs have typically lost their minds about - badges in the wrong spots, medals in the wrong order, not wearing a hat, imperfect hair, imperfect shoes - are, funnily enough, not the things that members would be negatively judged upon. The latter, being more noticeable to non-military folks, would be fashion fails like oversized jackets, awfully fitted shirts, and tight pants that squeeze your ass and package into disturbingly suggestive forms.
> 
> Those will make you look ridiculous to the uninitiated. So will some funny styles that'll come out of HAIRFORGEN, yet those will also be met with a shrug as they won't be in violation of policy anymore.


Former RSM here - that is the job of the RSM,MWOs WOs and NCOs. We take pride in how our unit appears and try to have the soldiers emulate that. It also instills a sense of discipline. 

It works and has for centuries.


----------



## TacticalTea (24 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Former RSM here - *that is the job* of the RSM,MWOs WOs and NCOs. We take pride in how our unit appears and try to have the soldiers emulate that. It also instills a sense of discipline.
> 
> It works and has for centuries.


I'm not sure what you're referring to, here. Care to point it out?

I get that the first elements of dress I mentioned need to be in order. Just saying that's not what the civies will notice.


----------



## FSTO (24 Jul 2022)

My girlfriend who has no idea about the military can spot an ill fitting uniform from a mile away and automatically has a negative opinion of the wearer.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Jul 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> I'm not sure what you're referring to, here. Care to point it out?
> 
> I get that the first elements of dress I mentioned need to be in order. Just saying that's not what the civies will notice.


I’m saying it was my job to be the picky sob to make sure the troops were properly turned out. 

And civvies notice.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> Well what you said was this
> “ I also be blunt and say that the majority of trans people I have met are not worth the logistical and mental health costs to actively recruit.”
> If you said “we shouldn’t recruit people with medical / mental health issues” I’d agree. We shouldn’t take on those costs. But you didn’t, you reached out specifically for trans people for some reason; and implied that they’re worth was lower than others. That kinda of thinking, and talk doesn’t fly in the CAF anymore. The fact that the only person to hold that language to account was actually the subject of ten pages of being called a bigot himself is a fine example of why we need a culture change. All that being said I’m well aware I’m not going to change you, or anyone else’s thinking on this.


and you want to actively recruit people who are in general in a more fragile state, into a job that routinely breaks even very healthy people? Your not doing them any favours. There are lots of opportunities to serve their country through the Civil Service, which would be a much healthier choice for them and can accommodate them better. And the part you neglected to add is if a Trans can get through the current selection process, then all the power to them, but I disagree sharply on spending time and money trying to recruit from that pool.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Jul 2022)

lenaitch said:


> I've ever quite understood those who join a, for want of a better term, 'homogenizing' organization then expect that their individuality should shine through.  It's not the member's image that is at stake, it's the organization's.  They have changed the rules. I hope they are right in their assessment.
> 
> In law enforcement, pretty much everybody quietly toes the line at the recruit and probationary stage.  Once members get more confidence and experience, some start to walk away from the line.  Some channel that into being some of the finest u/c and investigative personal you can find; others spend the rest of their career being a low output organizational PITA.
> 
> ...



He looks like the rabble that is the Veterans Motorcycle Group/Club/Whatever that likes to show up the Nov 11t and then go hang around Tim Hortons.


----------



## KevinB (25 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> and you want to actively recruit people who are in general in a more fragile state, into a job that routinely breaks even very healthy people? Your not doing them any favours. There are lots of opportunities to serve their country through the Civil Service, which would be a much healthier choice for them and can accommodate them better. And the part you neglected to add is if a Trans can get through the current selection process, then all the power to them, but I disagree sharply on spending time and money trying to recruit from that pool.


I think the same goes for any high risk medical or mental health issues.  That is simply common sense not active discrimination. 

Active discrimination would be tailoring recruitment to ignore those sort of people.   I still think one should screen for mental and health issues during recruiting, and that may pass over some applicants, as well as encourage others to self select out of that.  

WRT the issue of the uniform. 
   One used to get an allowance (I’m years out of the CAF so no idea if clothing allowance is still a thing).  That was to ensure one could get haircuts, shoe polish, and to tailor and dry clean uniforms.    

The SNCO corps was in charge of that sort of thing.  Usually it started with subtle points from the Sect Commander or WO, but sometimes the CSM would be required to counsel members, and god help someone that the RSM found still wanting.  

Of course it only works if the SNCO’s don’t look like a collective Bag if Shit too.  If that happens, you have already lost.


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Jul 2022)

FSTO said:


> My girlfriend who has no idea about the military can spot an ill fitting uniform from a mile away and automatically has a negative opinion of the wearer.


I think ill fitting DEUs are the norm, not the exception.

The new ones are so cheap I'm not going to bother taking it out to get tailored (for free, at the base tailors); I guess it's a good thing I learned to hem pants.


----------



## FSTO (25 Jul 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I think ill fitting DEUs are the norm, not the exception.
> 
> The new ones are so cheap I'm not going to bother taking it out to get tailored (for free, at the base tailors); I guess it's a good thing I learned to hem pants.


Yes that is an issue. Just like the sweaters, absolute garbage.


----------



## FSTO (25 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> I think the same goes for any high risk medical or mental health issues.  That is simply common sense not active discrimination.
> 
> Active discrimination would be tailoring recruitment to ignore those sort of people.   I still think one should screen for mental and health issues during recruiting, and that may pass over some applicants, as well as encourage others to self select out of that.
> 
> ...


The points system replaced the allowance because according to a SYO buddy of mine there was DEU clothing sitting on the shelves not getting used. The quality of the garments has certainly not improved over the years.


----------



## lenaitch (25 Jul 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> He looks like the rabble that is the Veterans Motorcycle Group/Club/Whatever that likes to show up the Nov 11t and then go hang around Tim Hortons.


Law enforcement has it too.  Members retire and it seems the first thing they do is grow hair, buy a bike and leathers and t-shirts.  I get that retirement is a 'new chapter' and you get to do stuff your didn't have the time or opportunity to do when working, but some newly retired members do seem to go a little nuts.

Maybe I'm a little different.  I've been riding pretty much straight since I was 15.  I fully enjoy it but it is far from being a novelty, and I have no desire to look like a biker or pirate.


----------



## Furniture (25 Jul 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> *I think ill fitting DEUs are the norm, not the exception.*
> 
> The new ones are so cheap I'm not going to bother taking it out to get tailored (for free, at the base tailors); I guess it's a good thing I learned to hem pants.


I'd argue that not getting DEUs at all is the new norm... Since March I have not had DEUs, and having just seen a picture of a parade held at NFS(P), it looks like I am far from the only one without DEUs.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> I think the same goes for any high risk medical or mental health issues.  That is simply common sense not active discrimination.
> 
> Active discrimination would be tailoring recruitment to ignore those sort of people.   I still think one should screen for mental and health issues during recruiting, and that may pass over some applicants, as well as encourage others to self select out of that.
> 
> ...



I think a lot of this has to do with a desire to look like SOF for a lot of people.  Long hair, big beards in a mish mash of Tactical Tailor and store bought kit...

I used to find it perplexing that in AFG SOF stood out like a sore thumb.  Seemed counter intuitive to the intent which was to blend in and be a grey man.


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Jul 2022)

Furniture said:


> I'd argue that not getting DEUs at all is the new norm... Since March I have not had DEUs, and having just seen a picture of a parade held at NFS(P), it looks like I am far from the only one without DEUs.


I can imagine; I had a pair of pants on backorder for almost a year, and still waiting on some new oxfords. Not a big deal while still working from home, but with the poor quality don't see the shirts lasting too long. Will see about the pants, but I doubt that they will last as long as the original pair I got in basic, which I only had to retire as they stopped fitting around my quads.


----------



## Quirky (25 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> The CAF as a whole has largely put too much emphasis on aesthetics, to a degree that it detracts from our actual mandates IMHO.


That's the problem, the CAF is lost and hasn't been given direction in years. We are wandering around in the dark trying to keep busy. If we were involved in a conflict or actual mandates, we wouldn't have time for these dress/appearance boards and pet projects.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Jul 2022)

lenaitch said:


> Law enforcement has it too.  Members retire and it seems the first thing they do is grow hair, buy a bike and leathers and t-shirts.  I get that retirement is a 'new chapter' and you get to do stuff your didn't have the time or opportunity to do when working, but some newly retired members do seem to go a little nuts.
> 
> Maybe I'm a little different.  I've been riding pretty much straight since I was 15.  I fully enjoy it but it is far from being a novelty, and I have no desire to look like a biker or pirate.


I never went through the “biker” phase. I spent too much time dealing with real bikers to want to emulate them


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2022)

FSTO said:


> They get the clothes for free, spend a few bucks and take them to a tailor y’a cheap bastards! I tailor the shirts myself.
> 
> But that’s the Canadian way isn’t it? Being cheap, ineffective and look like a sack of shit all at the same time.



Why would 70k employees start paying for something their employer has deemed unimportant?  If the CAF is happy how I look in my DEU shirts (I can get pants and tunics done on my Wing in a 2ish week timeline)...well, so I am.  

I also stopped wasting my own time polishing ankle boots that are not properly made to handle shining with polish.   🤙


----------



## Remius (25 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Why would 70k employees start paying for something their employer has deemed unimportant?  If the CAF is happy how I look in my DEU shirts (I can get pants and tunics done on my Wing in a 2ish week timeline)...well, so I am.
> 
> I also stopped wasting my own time polishing ankle boots that are not properly made to handle shining with polish.   🤙


I hate those boots.


----------



## QV (25 Jul 2022)

When I served everyone I respected was fighting fit and when in DEUs they made sure they looked highly turned out. 

I can't understand why anyone would accept looking like a sh**bag.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2022)

I WAS one of those types who spent their own money, often:

I bought the Regt buckle for the garrison dress...only to then have the belts removed and then later the whole uniform;
I bought my rank badges for the green/tan shirt when I was in the Reserves;
I bought a ranger blanket, because the CAF didn't provide but the CANEX sure sold them;
I bought the american rain jacket for the field because ours sucked serious ass;
I bought Matterhorn and jungle boots, and my own GORTEX socks before they were issued to everyone who goes to the field;
I bought my own kit for my survival kit for the CRAPVEST for IMPACT at about $200 before the CAF could provide LPSVs (that they still fucked up);
I and many others paid for decent desert boots off Shoeme.ca etc for deployments because the steel toe cripplers would get people captured or killed in a E & E situation.
I bought my own multi-colour/lens flashlight, because the issued one is shit and white only.

I could list about 50-75 other things I know I've bought that *should* have been provided.

I will *not* pay to have a SS or LS DEU shit tailored.  Ever.  yes, it looks like a light blue single-person tent out of the package.  I've paid for enough stuff in my 33 years...I'm done.

Those of you who are shitting on anyone like me ...go shit on your superiors and get them to change the DEU system and/or add funding for tailoring.  It's not my fault, so my "net income" isn't the fucking solution.

Honest to fuck...shitting on members for crappy items the system issues that they won't pay for themselves.  Un-fucking-belieable.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2022)

FSTO said:


> My girlfriend who has no idea about the military can spot an ill fitting uniform from a mile away and automatically has a negative opinion of the wearer.



I recently paid out the butt to have last minute tailoring done. I could have just wore the issued tunic straight from logistick and not care that it fit me like a sun dress but I didn't think it was professional.

Angle head flashlights and 10 cent ear plugs for the range. Some people take pride in being frugal





Eye In The Sky said:


> I WAS one of those types who spent their own money, often:
> 
> I bought the Regt buckle for the garrison dress...only to then have the belts removed and then later the whole uniform;
> I bought my rank badges for the green/tan shirt when I was in the Reserves;
> ...




Careful there, you don't want to ruin the narrative and bad reputation that everyone here thinks the same way.


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Jul 2022)

Amen; I have a pair of magnetic shirt stays (which are awesome for any formal clothes; link below for anyone interested). That's as far as I'm going, as long as the CAF has decided to issue DEU shirts that I can fit a few basketballs in around the waist, if I get something that fits my neck/shoulders.

If I look like a shitbag, it's because I'm issued with a cheap cotton sack made for pears.

(these however are awesome; Magnetuck® Shirt Stays Have had them for about 7 or 8 years and the magnets are still insanely strong)


----------



## FSTO (25 Jul 2022)

Okay, I've been suitably told to shit in my fist. But, I'll still do what I have to do to look decent, even if the clowns running our outfit refuse to do the right thing. 
I will still tell the sailors and officers in my unit to get their DEU's tailored as required because here in Regina the armoury has a good contract with a local tailor and things get done very quickly. I won't be too much of an asshole if they use the excuse as outlined by others in this thread.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I bought my own multi-colour/lens flashlight, because the issued one is shit and white only.


EITS, your Wing Sup section failed you.  The system has had white/red/ANVIS flashlights for (checks log book, started flying NVGs in 1991)…a long, long time.  Don’t disagree with your choice to not invest in DEU-related svc, but by the same token, some folks don’t mind dropping coin on a bunch of things in ops that may either not be provided at all (perhaps a UOR then, if not in the system?), I saw some funky chest rigs in AFG that some CoCs tolerated, stretchy single-point slings, etc. that were relatively ‘pimp-my-gun’y, so it seems there can be a wide variance in where members are happy to spend their own money.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jul 2022)

Maybe now is not a good time to propose allowing members to wear tailored battledress?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> EITS, your Wing Sup section failed you.  The system has had white/red/ANVIS flashlights for (checks log book, started flying NVGs in 1991)…a long, long time.



Hmm.  I'll have to check the (newly updated) Aircrew SOI for that.  We asked for something like that for IMPACT and were told it's not in the system for us...maybe not on the sub-scale for 'all'?



Good2Golf said:


> Don’t disagree with your choice to not invest in DEU-related svc, but by the same token, some folks don’t mind dropping coin on a bunch of things in ops that may either not be provided at all (perhaps a UOR then, if not in the system?), I saw some funky chest rigs in AFG that some CoCs tolerated, stretchy single-point slings, etc. that were relatively ‘pimp-my-gun’y, so it seems there can be a wide variance in where members are happy to spend their own money.



Agreed, and I'm one that will supplement op requirements as needed (life investment...).  Begrudingly because I think that should all be at the Crown's expense but my FSP/HA/HA bonus/RA was able to absorb, so not really out of my pocket (my way to not care about the cost).

The issue I see if when supervisors do things like pay out of pocket $100 to have SS shirts tailored for wear with 3B, or any optional type kit "upgrade", operational or otherwise, and then further that expectation down their chain, whatever level they exist at.  Turn that energy into pushing it up the chain...long term solution vice short term fix.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Jul 2022)

When the earth finally cooled and we found ourselves in Cyprus our Work Dress (which was not for work at least not in the Infantry) shirts had been tailored to fit and made into Short Sleeve WD shirts. AND none of us paid a dime.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> The issue I see if when supervisors do things like pay out of pocket $100 to have SS shirts tailored for wear with 3B, or any optional type kit "upgrade", operational or otherwise, and then further that expectation down their chain, whatever level they exist at. Turn that energy into pushing it up the chain...long term solution vice short term fix.


EITS, I’m 10000% with you on this!


----------



## kev994 (25 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I will *not* pay to have a SS or LS DEU shit tailored.  Ever.  yes, it looks like a light blue single-person tent out of the package.  I've paid for enough stuff in my 33 years...I'm done.


I thought it was just me, I have a big neck, so according to Logistik I must also be 8 feet tall and weigh 400 lbs.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Maybe now is not a good time to propose allowing members to wear tailored battledress?



With kilt or trews?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2022)

kev994 said:


> I thought it was just me, I have a big neck, so according to Logistik I must also be 8 feet tall and weigh 400 lbs.



Right?!?!

If I pay $50 to get them tailored for me, the WCWO etc won’t see how bad these things are and it will continue.  If they do see it and no one above me cares, then great they don’t care and neither will I.  

If Joe Public sees me and says “why is your shirt so big”, my reply will be “the same reason my airplane rolled off the line 42 years ago”.


----------



## Quirky (25 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> If Joe Public sees me and says “why is your shirt so big”, my reply will be “the same reason my airplane rolled off the line 42 years ago”.



Then Joe will make a sarcastic comment and live the rest of his life continuing not to care.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2022)

Quirky said:


> Then Joe will make a sarcastic comment and live the rest of his life continuing not to care.



…which is also why I fly on 4 decade old patrol aircraft…


----------



## TacticalTea (25 Jul 2022)

kev994 said:


> I thought it was just me, I have a big neck, so according to Logistik I must also be 8 feet tall and weigh 400 lbs.


With an organization that MANDATES fitness, it is utterly strange that its uniforms would not be designed for athletic fits...


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Jul 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> With an organization that MANDATES fitness, it is utterly strange that its uniforms would not be designed for athletic fits...



I'm guessing you're being sarcastic here...

The FORCE test is mandated, but a higher level of fitness leading to a trim figure is not.


----------



## TacticalTea (25 Jul 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> I'm guessing you're being sarcastic here...
> 
> The FORCE test is mandated, but a higher level of fitness leading to a trim figure is not.


Not sarcastic, just delusional.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Jul 2022)

37 years and all I ever had tailored was my Mess Kit and my Patrols. I wore it all as issued.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2022)

I'm happy to pay to have my uniforms tailored out of pocket because QR&O 17.02 tells me the dress and appearance of officers and non-commissioned members shall on all occasions be such as to reflect credit on the Service. 

Not "on all occasions providing the Crown pays for it".


----------



## Booter (25 Jul 2022)

it’s all perfume on a pig with me. I just do over watch and security now. There’s always someone who prefers to be in the pictures with everyone


----------



## Remius (25 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I'm happy to pay to have my uniforms tailored out of pocket because QR&O 17.02 tells me the dress and appearance of officers and non-commissioned members shall on all occasions be such as to reflect credit on the Service.
> 
> Not "on all occasions providing the Crown pays for it".


With beards and hair now, a lot of people can just redirect the funds they used for shaving and haircuts to tailoring.


----------



## Quirky (25 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> …which is also why I fly on 4 decade old patrol aircraft…


4 decades? Must be nice…


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I'm happy to pay to have my uniforms tailored out of pocket because QR&O 17.02 tells me the dress and appearance of officers and non-commissioned members shall on all occasions be such as to reflect credit on the Service.
> 
> Not "on all occasions providing the Crown pays for it".



I'll counter your QR & O with the applic parts of the SAM if you don't mind...  (the numbering of para's is a little weird/off)

Supply Administration Manual, 9.3 Clothing and Personal Equipment

1.3 - DND clothing and personal equipment is maintained at public expense and is accounted for on the member’s Individual Account (IA). The issue, return, repair, replacement of individual items (exchanges) and disposal are subject to specific directives. This chapter describes instructions and processes in these matters.

Allotment of Clothing and Personal Equipment

2.5 Allotment issued to CAF members shall be recorded on their personal record individual account (IA). Individuals are responsible for the safeguard and care of DND clothing and equipment provided to them as they are custodian. All entitled clothing accoutrements held in the Materiel Management System of Record shall be issued and replaced at no cost to CAF personnel (EXCEPT for honorary colonel which can’t be registered in Human Resources Management System (Guardian) or loss of the item due to negligence).

Sustainment of Clothing and Personal Equipment

2.9 CAF clothing shall not be altered or modified without authorization. Repairs are made at public expense. Repairs are limited to that of rendering the item serviceable to fulfill its designed function and do not involve extensive uneconomical repair or alterations.


DEU Tailoring and Alteration

2.54 Alterations to new DEU clothing shall be completed at public expense for all ranks on initial issue and for replacement of authorized DEU items of clothing. Shirts cannot be altered at public expense. Exceptions can be authorized by the Sup O/Log O or clothing supervisor, including alterations to CAF shirts. If an individual requires alterations beyond what is listed in this chapter, they must provide substantiation in writing (email) to the Sup O/Log O or clothing stores supervisor. Alterations to CAF shirts, although not restricted to this group, would normally *be allowed for CAF personnel holding senior appointments**.  *

2.55 Major alterations are not authorized to DEU garments. A comprehension range of standard DEU sizes are available from the contractor, made to measure ranges as described in “Special size’’ and are also available online. Minor alterations described in this chapter should allow for a proper fit. If a proper fit is not possible, a made to measure garment shall be ordered.
2.56 For all personnel, only minor alterations are authorized at public expense. Authorized minor alterations to DEU are as follows:

a. DEU tunics:
i. taking in and letting out the side seams;
ii. removal of the excess material just below the back of the collar, often referred to as
"raising the back”;
iii. deepening of the armhole;
iv. taking in and letting out the centre back; and
v. raising or lowering the sleeve length.

b. DEU trousers/slacks:
i. raising or lowering the pant length;
ii. increasing or decreasing the trouser waist; and
iii. letting out the thigh.

c. DEU skirts:
i. raising or lowering the skirt length;
ii. taking in and letting out side seams; and
iii. increasing or decreasing the waist.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> With beards and hair now, a lot of people can just redirect the funds they used for shaving and haircuts to tailoring.


Too late. They've already leased a $75,000 pick up truck, bought a 3rd Xbox, and $6000 gaming laptop where they're writing a memo about not being able to afford being posted.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Jul 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Too late. They've already leased a $75,000 pick up truck, bought a 3rd Xbox, and $6000 gaming laptop where they're writing a memo about not being able to afford being posted.



See? There's an example of organizational abuse right there: not acknowledging the right to be irresponsible to the point of self-immolation


----------



## kev994 (25 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> 2.9 CAF clothing shall not be altered or modified without authorization.


So you’re not even allowed to get it tailored on your own dime without authorization?


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Jul 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> 37 years and all I ever had tailored was my Mess Kit and my Patrols. I wore it all as issued.


I was lucky - most uniforms fit off the rack. No alterations needed for the most part.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Jul 2022)

kev994 said:


> So you’re not even allowed to get it tailored on your own dime without authorization?


According to the regulations you are not however smart people know what regulations to obey.

Oh and BTW this includes the lining of your beret for those that wear it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2022)

kev994 said:


> So you’re not even allowed to get it tailored on your own dime without authorization?



Well. If you do and it doesn’t work out you better have some points left I’d say…or your next order becomes a sale order.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2022)

kev994 said:


> So you’re not even allowed to get it tailored on your own dime without authorization?



I think the point people should take out of that part of the SAM is that us proletarians can’t get our shirts tailored at public expense but Snr Appointments can.  “Shirts cannot be tailored at public expense except for when they can be”.  The ever-popular double-standard standard.😝


----------



## SupersonicMax (25 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I think the point people should take out of that part of the SAM is that us proletarians can’t get our shirts tailored at public expense but Snr Appointments can.  “Shirts cannot be tailored at public expense except for when they can be”.  The ever-popular double-standard standard.😝


But when the double standard goes the other way, no issues, right?  Like when ACS techs use the shop on weekends.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Oh and BTW this includes the lining of your beret for those that wear it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> But when the double standard goes the other way, no issues, right?  Like when ACS techs use the shop on weekends.



 No, but the issue in the “current culture” is the double-standard usually benefits the more senior of our ranks (NCM and Officer).


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> No, but the issue in the “current culture” is the double-standard usually benefits the more senior of our ranks (NCM and Officer).


Aren’t you a WO? Shut up and eat your rice


----------



## SupersonicMax (25 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> No, but the issue in the “current culture” is the double-standard usually benefits the more senior of our ranks (NCM and Officer).


From a public appearance point of view, I would argue that it is more important that people in senior appointments look good than it is for Avr/Pte/Sailor Bloggins. People in those senior appointments are fairly often interacting with senior officials and the media, including in front of cameras.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> From a public appearance point of view, I would argue that it is more important that people in senior appointments look good than it is for Avr/Pte/Sailor Bloggins. People in those senior appointments are fairly often interacting with senior officials and the media, including in front of cameras.



Very true; so the CAF has decided the value in expenditure of public funds for altering shirts  isn’t worth it for 98% of the CAF, including me.  

I’m quite happy spending $100 on something I need from Bass Pro/Cabelas rather than my SS and LS shirts.   🙂


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Aren’t you a WO? Shut up and eat your rice



😁  I’m married, you’d think I know better by now than to voice my opinion!


----------



## MilEME09 (25 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> 😁  I’m married, you’d think I know better by now than to voice my opinion!


Awe that's so nice of your spouse to let you have an opinion , mime doesn't let me


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jul 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> Awe that's so nice of your spouse to let you have an opinion , mime doesn't let me


I'm lucky.....mine allows me to agree with hers.


----------



## TacticalTea (25 Jul 2022)

Fellas, stop. Y'all are grossing me out of ever getting married!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Fellas, stop. Y'all are grossing me out of ever getting married!



We are over exaggerating.  It’s totally not like that at all…


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Jul 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> But when the double standard goes the other way, no issues, right?  Like when ACS techs use the shop on weekends.


What? They would never..would they?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jul 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> What? They would never..would they?


I'm sure the pilots could also  go to the shop and talk about how great they are any weekend they wished....


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I'll counter your QR & O with the applic parts of the SAM if you don't mind.



Counter the QR&Os? That's holy script. You can't counter the Word. 
I've never heard this SAM thing you speak of, it sounds like blasphemy though. 

Next you're going to say you didn't pack a  boot polish kit in that fancy survival kit of yours. I'm literally shaking rn.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Jul 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> Awe that's so nice of your spouse to let you have an opinion , mime doesn't let me


She’ll tell you what your opinion is


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Jul 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I WAS one of those types who spent their own money, often:
> 
> I bought the Regt buckle for the garrison dress...only to then have the belts removed and then later the whole uniform;
> I bought my rank badges for the green/tan shirt when I was in the Reserves;
> ...



I have bought tons of my own kit and I'm a storesman.  I've bought boots, rucksack, helmet liner, bedding (ship board), rifle sling, work gloves, head lamps, suspenders, socks...  I've also paid for tailoring... Its just quicker to go outside the dockyard I find.

I think we should get out of clothing all together, beyond your initial issue.  After that its all sold at CANEX at your expense, no more freebees. Operational equipment being the exception.  When people have to pay cash to replace kit watch how fast they start to take care of it and keep in shape to make it fit.


----------



## KevinB (26 Jul 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I have bought tons of my own kit and I'm a storesman.  I've bought boots, rucksack, helmet liner, bedding (ship board), rifle sling, work gloves, head lamps, suspenders, socks...  I've also paid for tailoring... Its just quicker to go outside the dockyard I find.


I was a major gear queer back in the day, but one shouldn’t need to supplement (or replace) CAF issue items.  The fact that so much of the CAF issued gear stunk, and despite writing a bunch of documentation on it, very little ever appeared to have made it to DLR, and then DLR often came back with excuses or something totally different than what was needed/requested.  
     Tease the Soldier (Clothe the Soldier) was yet another debacle in a long line of train wrecks.  



Halifax Tar said:


> I think we should get out of clothing all together, beyond your initial issue.  After that its all sold at CANEX at your expense, no more freebees. Operational equipment being the exception.  When people have to pay cash to replace kit watch how fast they start to take care of it and keep in shape to make it fit.


That is the way the US Mil does it. 
   *certain positions get additional allocations.


----------



## btrudy (26 Jul 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I have bought tons of my own kit and I'm a storesman.  I've bought boots, rucksack, helmet liner, bedding (ship board), rifle sling, work gloves, head lamps, suspenders, socks...  I've also paid for tailoring... Its just quicker to go outside the dockyard I find.
> 
> I think we should get out of clothing all together, beyond your initial issue.  After that its all sold at CANEX at your expense, no more freebees. Operational equipment being the exception.  When people have to pay cash to replace kit watch how fast they start to take care of it and keep in shape to make it fit.



Yeah... can't say that I'm a big fan of this whole "screw over literally every CAF member" plan. If the CAF wants to get out of paying for uniforms, then they need to stop mandating them.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> Yeah... can't say that I'm a big fan of this whole "screw over literally every CAF member" plan. If the CAF wants to get out of paying for uniforms, then they need to stop mandating them.


Or pay you more to account for added costs. 😉

I get a bunch of subsidies from my current employer on everything from gear to automobiles.

For stuff like gloves, safety vests, ear defenders, batteries, flashlights, hardhats, safety glasses, etc. It's all free.  They do track what you're using so if you go to work and steal a bunch of stuff, expect to get fired/charged.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Jul 2022)

Imagine a world in which people in some occupations are expected to pay for some things on their own...


----------



## FSTO (26 Jul 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I think we should get out of clothing all together, beyond your initial issue. After that its all sold at CANEX at your expense, no more freebees. Operational equipment being the exception. When people have to pay cash to replace kit watch how fast they start to take care of it and keep in shape to make it fit.


When you got the allowance (34.00 per month), folks would just make do as long as possible and no, not many would do the extra PT to keep from getting a "Chief". The worst that I saw was when the white pants came out for a reason and the shirt was various shades of grey and the pants a brilliant white.
Oh and when the reservist came to the coasts for summer training, you'd latch onto one who was close to your size so that they could exchange (the reservists received free exchanges at the time) your crappy looking shirts, pants and shoes for new ones.


----------



## TCM621 (26 Jul 2022)

FSTO said:


> The points system replaced the allowance because according to a SYO buddy of mine there was DEU clothing sitting on the shelves not getting used. The quality of the garments has certainly not improved over the years.


It used to cost like 200 dollars for a complete new uniform. Guys didn't save their allowance and couldn't afford a new uniform out of a standard pay check. As a result, they just squeezed their fat asses into the uniform they were issued at basic.


----------



## TCM621 (26 Jul 2022)

After 57 pages of this discussion, 2 things have become apparent. The first is that the discussion has been about the _appearance _of professionalism on the one side vs whether or not some _is _professional. The appearance side has given a lot of examples of people who look unprofessional to the majority of people while the other side has countered with examples of people who look unprofessional but are actually professional in their work. Unfortunately, neither side seems to be making much headway because they aren't talking about the same things. The second is that we have seen a lot of different opinions on what constitutes professional attire. I think context matters a lot. The question at hand is whether the military should lean to the conservative side of the equation like finance, traditional business or the more like the relatively lax world of tech?


----------



## btrudy (26 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Imagine a world in which people in some occupations are expected to pay for some things on their own...



Imagine a world in which that's universally considered an unreasonable expectation. 

Employment expenses should be 100% on the employer. The fact that this isn't the case everywhere is simply an assault on the working class perpetrated by the rich.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> simply an assault on the working class perpetrated by the rich.



Working class better learn to defend themselves then.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Jul 2022)

TCM621 said:


> It used to cost like 200 dollars for a complete new uniform. Guys didn't save their allowance and couldn't afford a new uniform out of a standard pay check. As a result, they just squeezed their fat asses into the uniform they were issued at basic.


Kitting an officer out for my Navy League Corp is about $700 which we have to pay out of the Branch funds, all of us are wearing hand me downs until they get to ratty. The crap Logistik Corp produces is unbelievable. That's part of the issue, you nee to break that monopoly.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (26 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Kitting an officer out for my Navy League Corp is about $700 which we have to pay out of the Branch funds, all of us are wearing hand me downs until they get to ratty. The crap Logistik Corp produces is unbelievable. That's part of the issue, you nee to break that monopoly.


Someone can correct me in my historical understanding, but weren't the old CF Greens and subsequent DEU supposed to be a cost saving measure? One uniform, modular for everything from office attire and parades, all while being of cheaper material than patrols or other uniforms?

Somehow we ended up with this poorly fitting, poorly made, and poorly stocked system that serves no one but Logistik...


----------



## Remius (26 Jul 2022)

I bought mess kit.  I bought patrols.  I didn’t have to buy either.

Field wise I’ve been buying gear and things for 25 years.  Things to make my life easier and more comfortable and things I can use civy side if needed.   But I chose to do that.  Troops do it all the time and will continue to do that.  

In the last big power outage we had here I was happy I could make coffee with my jetboil, use my headlamp and device  power packs.  I’ve used my mucklucks in the yard and my NEOs as well in January.  

Troops buying things won’t end any time soon if they can find better than what they are given.  And there will always be something better than what we are provided.


----------



## kev994 (26 Jul 2022)

TCM621 said:


> It used to cost like 200 dollars for a complete new uniform. Guys didn't save their allowance and couldn't afford a new uniform out of a standard pay check. As a result, they just squeezed their fat asses into the uniform they were issued at basic.


We should use a complicated points system instead. Does anyone know a tailor who works for socks? Or potentially wedges? I may even be able to spring for a fur hat.


----------



## lenaitch (27 Jul 2022)

btrudy said:


> Imagine a world in which that's universally considered an unreasonable expectation.
> 
> Employment expenses should be 100% on the employer. The fact that this isn't the case everywhere is simply an assault on the working class perpetrated by the rich.


That's it.  It's all a plan by the WEF and Bilderberg Group.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Jul 2022)

> Employment expenses should be 100% on the employer.



Ultimately, they are.  Employer pays some costs and pays you, the amount of the latter being influenced by the amount of the former.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Jul 2022)

lenaitch said:


> That's it.  It's all a plan by the WEF and Bilderberg Group.


So Logistik Group = Power Corp?


----------



## dangerboy (8 Aug 2022)

So the new changes to the dress manual are now online. Dress instructions | Section 2 Appearance - Canada.ca. While I can understand some of the changes I don’t understand others. For example

Old 


*Behaviour.* Personnel in uniform shall comport themselves in a manner which projects a positive military appearance. Behaviour such as chewing gum, slouching, placing hands in pockets, smoking or eating on the street and walking hand in hand, is forbidden. This instruction’s objective is to project an image of a disciplined and self-controlled force.

*Military Presence. *Personnel in uniform shall be well groomed, with footwear cleaned and shone, and uniform cleaned and properly pressed. In particular, buttons, fasteners and zippers shall be kept closed; pockets shall not be bulged; items such as glasses, glass cases, sunglasses, pens, pencils, key rings or paper shall not be visibly extended nor protrude from pockets or be suspended from waist belts or pockets; personal cell phones that are conservative in appearance may be worn; headphones shall not be worn; ear buds may be worn when travelling on public transit only. CAF personnel wearing civilian clothes on military installations and in military groups or settings shall dress and comport themselves at all times as befits members of a disciplined, cohesive force.
New

*Conduct.* Personnel in uniform shall comport themselves in a manner which projects a positive military appearance.

*Military Presence.* CAF personnel wearing military uniform and civilian clothes on military installations and in military groups or settings shall dress and comport themselves at all times as befits members of a professional, respectful, disciplined, cohesive force.
I don’t know why they got rid of statements such as slouching, hands in pockets, headphones should not be worn. Now people can do that and say it still projects a positive military appearance. I am old fashion I like examples and clear statements vice really vague statements

Grumblings from a dinosaur. I still need to read past just this initial intro


----------



## Furniture (8 Aug 2022)

dangerboy said:


> So the new changes to the dress manual are now online. Dress instructions | Section 2 Appearance - Canada.ca. While I can understand some of the changes I don’t understand others. For example
> 
> Old
> 
> ...


I like that they are going to a more common sense based approach, and getting rid of rules that were routinely ignored. I think there is still plenty of room for telling a S3/Pte to zip their jacket up, or stop dancing around to their K-Pop while wearing earbuds.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (8 Aug 2022)

Honestly, its about on par with most civilian dress codes. 

The main thing I'm seeing is that its non-gendered, kind of open ended, and specifically stresses safety/operational effectiveness over appearance.

It also seems to be more of a "we're not stopping you, but, the decision to alter your appearance will be on you to maintain and on you to ensure you're functional." 

Like I said earlier up post, this is a "Yes, you can if you want to. Doesn't necessarily mean you should."


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Aug 2022)

dangerboy said:


> I don’t know why they got rid of statements such as slouching, hands in pockets, headphones should not be worn.



Seems to me they made it very ambiguous instead. 

A unit CO can decide that putting your hands in your pocket doesn't project a positive military appearance.



> comport themselves at all times as befits members of a professional, respectful, disciplined, cohesive force.



What does a member of a professional, respectful, disciplined, cohesive force look like?  The UK? US?

Like you I'm an examples guy.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Aug 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Seems to me they made it very ambiguous instead.
> 
> A unit CO can decide that putting your hands in your pocket doesn't project a positive military appearance.
> 
> ...


This?


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Aug 2022)

Edward Campbell said:


> View attachment 72400View attachment 72401This?



Great example.

Interestingly I dug up what I think appears to be their dress regs and they seem strict. 








						The Military Rules of Appearance and Dress Code
					

Welcome! Soon you will officially join the IDF, and will receive a Military Identification Card as well as a Dog tags - (“diskit”), and even getting your own uniform. The question is, will you be able to do it right? Keep calm and don't panic, because we have gathered especially for you all of...



					www.mitgaisim.idf.il
				







> Hair
> 
> 1. Male soldiers must have short and even length hair, without layering.
> 
> ...


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Aug 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Great example.
> 
> Interestingly I dug up what I think appears to be their dress regs and they seem strict.
> 
> ...



Meanwhile, in Norway:

Norway’s male soldiers allowed ponytails​Norway's male soldiers will be permitted to sport ponytails and braids under new gender-neutral regulations, Dagbladet has reported.

The new rules follow complaints from a male officer that while female soldiers were allowed to keep their hair in a loose braid or ponytail, man with longer hair had to gather it into a knot or hair net. 









						Norway’s male soldiers allowed ponytails
					

Norway's male soldiers will be permitted to sport ponytails and braids under new gender-neutral regulations, Dagbladet has reported.




					www.thelocal.no


----------



## Navy_Pete (8 Aug 2022)

Allowing ponytails for everyone makes sense to me; if there are no safety issues that prohibit it in one gender doesn't make any sense to restrict it for anyone else.

Beards, and facial piercings can have genuine safety issues though so pretty frustrating that these guidelines didn't come with very clear direction on what exactly is specifically excluded (ie beard with FF mask/C4) so now we have to argue with every armchair expert who saw something on youtube, or has a buddy who knows a guy. Now it's left up to the unit level where they don't have the expertise, or are even aware in a lot of cases what the actual CAF policies/safety related requirements are.


----------



## Furniture (8 Aug 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Allowing ponytails for everyone makes sense to me; if there are no safety issues that prohibit it in one gender doesn't make any sense to restrict it for anyone else.
> 
> Beards, and facial piercings can have genuine safety issues though so pretty frustrating that these guidelines didn't come with very clear direction on what exactly is specifically excluded (ie beard with FF mask/C4) so now we have to argue with every armchair expert who saw something on youtube, or has a buddy who knows a guy. Now it's left up to the unit level where they don't have the expertise, or are even aware in a lot of cases what the actual CAF policies/safety related requirements are.


Those sorts of restrictions belong in the safety orders for each unit, not in a national dress regulation. In much the same way that the dress of the day for the NCR isn't listed in the dress regs.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Aug 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Now it's left up to the unit level where they don't have the expertise



This is probably the biggest Crux for me. 

I'm very much against micromanaging in all things. However when it comes to dress regs I think "lower level interpretation" isn't the best solution because units will do what they want (think beardforgen) and young troops and officers will hold the shitty end of that stick. 

We can't trust the CAF to treat sexually harassed and assaulted members fairly, I don't have a lot of faith dress regs will be different. Ambiguous rules won't help at all IMO.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Aug 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> This is probably the biggest Crux for me.
> 
> I'm very much against micromanaging in all things. However when it comes to dress regs I think "lower level interpretation" isn't the best solution because units will do what they want (think beardforgen) and young troops and officers will hold the shitty end of that stick.
> 
> We can't trust the CAF to treat sexually harassed and assaulted members fairly, I don't have a lot of faith dress regs will be different. Ambiguous rules won't help at all IMO.



We all know what's going to happen in many units, don't we?


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Aug 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> We all know what's going to happen in many units, don't we?


Meanwhile, in the RCAF:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Aug 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Meanwhile, in the RCAF:



🤙🏻


----------



## Navy_Pete (8 Aug 2022)

Furniture said:


> Those sorts of restrictions belong in the safety orders for each unit, not in a national dress regulation. In much the same way that the dress of the day for the NCR isn't listed in the dress regs.


I disagree that it should be left up to unit safety orders; there are safety organizations for each element that should issue clarifying directives.

For example, the RCN safety folks should be reminding the RCN that people wearing SCBAs need to be clean shaven on the sealing area IAW the Respiratory Protection Program (RPP), which is a CAF wide one.

With no fire fighters on board, and with disbandment of HTs, very few people on ships have any idea the RPP exists (and even the NAVORD on religious accomodations missed it).

Unit safety level direction is only appropriate when the knowledge is at unit level. Some things require SMEs.


----------



## Kilted (8 Aug 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> After that its all sold at CANEX at your expense, no more freebees. Operational equipment being the exception.  When people have to pay cash to replace kit watch how fast they start to take care of it and keep in shape to make it fit.


I don't know where you draw the line between uniforms or operational equipment.  I'd hate to see how much they would sell CADPAT for, and the way that the C-of-C would abuse the process by forcing troops to replace uniforms that are the slightest bit faded, worn out, or ripped (to the extent that it can be sewed up) because it would actually be doing able without having someone at stores to tell them that the uniform is faded/worn out/ripped enough.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Aug 2022)

Kilted said:


> I don't know where you draw the line between uniforms or operational equipment.  I'd hate to see how much they would sell CADPAT for, and the way that the C-of-C would abuse the process by forcing troops to replace uniforms that are the slightest bit faded, worn out, or ripped (to the extent that it can be sewed up) because it would actually be doing able without having someone at stores to tell them that the uniform is faded/worn out/ripped enough.


CADPAT is an operational uniform.


----------



## Furniture (8 Aug 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I disagree that it should be left up to unit safety orders; there are safety organizations for each element that should issue clarifying directives.
> 
> For example, the RCN safety folks should be reminding the RCN that people wearing SCBAs need to be clean shaven on the sealing area IAW the Respiratory Protection Program (RPP), which is a CAF wide one.
> 
> ...


Sounds great, still not something that needs to be, or should be part of dress regulations. 

If there are deficiencies in the CAFs safely rules, or safety training/awareness those should be addressed in the safety rules/training.


----------



## Navy_Pete (8 Aug 2022)

Furniture said:


> Sounds great, still not something that needs to be, or should be part of dress regulations.
> 
> If there are deficiencies in the CAFs safely rules, or safety training/awareness those should be addressed in the safety rules/training.


I agree?

The amplifying info should come from the respective safety orgs to remind people what the regs are. They haven't done it (with the RCN actually pushing for beards in SCBA pretty much every year for the last decade, with the same answer).

It's pretty obvious though if there is a massive update to dress regs, and you have caveats that there are safety/operational restrictions, the folks responsible for those caveats should maybe do something. A recommendation went their way to that effect about a year ago. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## btrudy (8 Aug 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I agree?
> 
> The amplifying info should come from the respective safety orgs to remind people what the regs are. They haven't done it (with the RCN actually pushing for beards in SCBA pretty much every year for the last decade, with the same answer).
> 
> It's pretty obvious though if there is a massive update to dress regs, and you have caveats that there are safety/operational restrictions, the folks responsible for those caveats should maybe do something. A recommendation went their way to that effect about a year ago. 🤷‍♂️



I mean, I suppose it might be helpful from a messaging perspective, but the orders in place for safety reasons are still perfectly valid. The update to the dress instructions was, after all, quite clear on the point that safety trumps all. Heck, if specifically mentioned the respiratory protection policy as an example of such restrictions above and beyond dress regulations. 

Not to mention that I think you're being a bit premature about the whole "Why isn't anyone saying anything", given that the new dress instructions still don't come into force for almost another month.


----------



## Navy_Pete (8 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> I mean, I suppose it might be helpful from a messaging perspective, but the orders in place for safety reasons are still perfectly valid. The update to the dress instructions was, after all, quite clear on the point that safety trumps all. Heck, if specifically mentioned the respiratory protection policy as an example of such restrictions above and beyond dress regulations.
> 
> Not to mention that I think you're being a bit premature about the whole "Why isn't anyone saying anything", given that the new dress instructions still don't come into force for almost another month.


No, the 'why isn't anyone saying anything' has been a question for years, given that some bright light put out a NAVORD that allows religious accomodation for beards in SCBA providing the CO can 'demonstrate they can successfully keep a seal'. Which we tested, and found to be impossible if the person is actually moving around.

Because of the safety implications, there is no religious or medical exemption allowing beards (or goatees I guess under the new rules) in SCBAs, and that's consistent with OSHA regulations and Human Rights laws around reasonable restrictions for safety/operations. If you want to give someone a religious or medical chit, fill your boots, but then they are exempt from any duty that requires an SCBA (so basically any duty watch, most positions on ship etc). Its fundamentally counter to any push to reduce crew numbers though, as that basically requires everyone to be able to do basics like firefighting.

It just happened to come up again with the dress reg update, because the RCN is basically foxed and values QoL over safety and operational effectiveness (at least until something goes wrong, so CYA so you aren't annointed as the scapegoat).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Aug 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I disagree that it should be left up to unit safety orders; there are safety organizations for each element that should issue clarifying directives.
> 
> For example, the RCN safety folks should be reminding the RCN that people wearing SCBAs need to be clean shaven on the sealing area IAW the Respiratory Protection Program (RPP), which is a CAF wide one.
> 
> ...



I just handed over UGSO to my replacement recently;  I can say without hesitation that I would not want those type of issues to hit my desk as a UGSO.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Aug 2022)

Furniture said:


> Sounds great, still not something that needs to be, or should be part of dress regulations.
> 
> If there are deficiencies in the CAFs safely rules, or safety training/awareness those should be addressed in the safety rules/training.



I agree with this and with what NP was saying; for our Sqn there are Air Div authorities or RCAF ones that should be the OPI for these issues.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Aug 2022)

> a positive military appearance



What is that, exactly?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (9 Aug 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> What is that, exactly?


A political answer to something that shouldn't be ambiguous?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Aug 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> What is that, exactly?



Open more to interpretation than it was before the change some might argue?

The dress regs don't say "chewing gum in uniform is forbidden" anymore.

They do, however, and will, still say "CAF Dress Instructions shall be interpreted as follows: *if an item is not included in these instructions, it is not authorized."*


----------



## SupersonicMax (11 Aug 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Open more to interpretation than it was before the change some might argue?
> 
> The dress regs don't say "chewing gum in uniform is forbidden" anymore.
> 
> They do, however, and will, still say "CAF Dress Instructions shall be interpreted as follows: *if an item is not included in these instructions, it is not authorized."*


So, a cyclist cannot shave their legs or arms because it is not stated in the dress manual?  We also can’t eat in uniform…


----------



## btrudy (11 Aug 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Open more to interpretation than it was before the change some might argue?
> 
> The dress regs don't say "chewing gum in uniform is forbidden" anymore.
> 
> They do, however, and will, still say "CAF Dress Instructions shall be interpreted as follows: *if an item is not included in these instructions, it is not authorized."*



Chewing gum is not an item of dress.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Aug 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> So, a cyclist cannot shave their legs or arms because it is nt stated in the dress manual?



Exactly!   

But seriously...I think some of the wording that was removed, vise revised, is going to be used contrary to the spirit/intent of the changes.

Not by me...but I see it happening.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> Chewing gum is not an item of dress.



You might want to read the part on "deportment"...that is contained inside the CAF Dress Regulations...






						Dress instructions | Section 2 Appearance - Canada.ca
					

Canadian Armed Forces Dress Instructions




					www.canada.ca
				




I agree with RMC above;  they've left some of this MORE open to interpretation and it would have been better if they had not.


----------



## SupersonicMax (11 Aug 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> You might want to read the part on "deportment"...that is contained inside the CAF Dress Regulations...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The only item that would not also prohibit you from chewing gum in civilian clothes is this one:


*Conduct.* Personnel in uniform shall comport themselves in a manner which projects a positive military appearance.
You’d have a hard time convincing me that chewing gum projects a negative military appearance.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Aug 2022)

For comparison, here are the "old" and "new" version of Ch 2, Sect 2: 

Old

DEPORTMENT

1. Responsibilities. Pursuant to QR&O 17.02, the deportment and appearance of all ranks, in uniform or when wearing civilian attire, shall on all occasions reflect credit on the CAF and the individual. It is the responsibility and duty of all officers, warrant officers and non-commissioned officers to ensure that, by their vigilance, actions and example, the policies, regulations and instructions contained herein are adhered to by all ranks.

2. Behaviour. Personnel in uniform shall comport themselves in a manner which projects a positive military appearance. Behaviour such as chewing gum, slouching, placing hands in pockets, smoking or eating on the street and walking hand in hand, is forbidden. This instruction’s objective is to project an image of a disciplined and self-controlled force.

3. Military Presence. Personnel in uniform shall be well groomed, with footwear cleaned and shone, and uniform cleaned and properly pressed. In particular, buttons, fasteners and zippers shall be kept closed; pockets shall not be bulged; items such as glasses, glass cases, sun-glasses, pens, pencils, key rings or paper shall not be visibly extended nor protrude from pockets or be suspended from waist belts or pockets; personal cell phones that are conservative in appearance may be worn; headphones shall not be worn; ear buds may be worn when travelling on public transit only. CAF personnel wearing civilian clothes on military installations and in military groups or settings shall dress and comport themselves at all times as befits members of a disciplined, cohesive force.

New

DEPORTMENT
1.  Responsibilities. Pursuant to QR&O 17.02, the deportment and appearance of all ranks, in uniform or when wearing civilian attire, shall on all occasions reflect credit on the CAF and the individual. It is the responsibility and duty of all CAF members to ensure that, by their vigilance, actions and example, the policies, regulations and instructions contained herein are adhered to.

2.  Conduct. Personnel in uniform shall comport themselves in a manner which projects a positive military appearance.

3.  Military Presence. CAF personnel wearing military uniform and civilian clothes on military installations and in military groups or settings shall dress and comport themselves at all times as befits members of a professional, respectful, disciplined, cohesive force.

* I'm hoping they revise and amplify #2;  that is very open to interpretation.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Aug 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> The only item that would not also prohibit you from chewing gum in civilian clothes is this one:
> 
> 
> *Conduct.* Personnel in uniform shall comport themselves in a manner which projects a positive military appearance.
> You’d have a hard time convincing me that chewing gum projects a negative military appearance.



I'm not trying to convince you that because I don't think it does.  

I used that example because it was in the 'old' version...but the new, simplified version is so simplified it is too vague (IMO).

Much like the Leave Policy Manual was needed to bring some standardization to leave practices across the CAF...the dress regs should do the same.  If I get out of my car and walk into the Sqn chewing gum, nothing will be said to me.  Will the same be true for Pte Bloggins at one of the infantry battalions, or on course in Borden?

So, this is why I think some of the changes are going to cause issues (they have left it to open to interpretation).  I could care less about gum unless someone is having a bubble blowing contest or something...


----------



## Furniture (11 Aug 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> For comparison, here are the "old" and "new" version of Ch 2, Sect 2:
> 
> Old
> 
> ...


I think #2 is just about perfect.

This is where the "member ought to have _*reasonably*_ known" comes into play. Wearing earbuds walking to work in uniform? Professional. Dancing to your music while listening to your earbuds and walking to work in uniform? Unprofessional.

Many organizations outside the CAF manage to get their people to behave in a professional manner without spelling things out in excruciating detail.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Aug 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> You’d have a hard time convincing me that chewing gum projects a negative military appearance.



What if someone was in your office and you were giving them shit for something and they were smacking away on their wad of grape hubba-bubba? 

Or receiving remedial measures/being charged?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Aug 2022)

Furniture said:


> I think #2 is just about perfect.
> 
> This is where the "member ought to have _*reasonably*_ known" comes into play. Wearing earbuds walking to work in uniform? Professional. Dancing to your music while listening to your earbuds and walking to work in uniform? Unprofessional.
> 
> Many organizations outside the CAF manage to get their people to behave in a professional manner without spelling things out in excruciating detail.



One of the problems will be with the types who are dead against these changes and will use that vague wording to their advantage.

Remember when BEARDFORGEN came out and Snr mbr's were putting their own "spin" on it?  There wasn't much vague about beards and yet...

Then there will be the 'push the envelope' types who will dance with their earbuds in...arguing their point.

Vague isn't always good.  "Start the engines" wouldn't be a good checklist item on an Aurora...details are important and helpful so there's no guessing.


----------



## SupersonicMax (11 Aug 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> What if someone was in your office and you were giving them shit for something and they were smacking away on their wad of grape hubba-bubba?
> 
> Or receiving remedial measures/being charged?


Honestly?  This is more something about basic respect and courtesy (making noise during a conversation) rather than something about military appearance.  My initial reaction would be the same as a civilian than as a CO: “Can you please stop chewing loudly?” If the person didn’t stop, I’d just have have more options as a CO than a civilian.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Aug 2022)

For the record...I chew gum daily, flying or not flying.  Have for years...many years.

On parade?  Nope.  at Morning Prayers?  why not.


----------



## SupersonicMax (11 Aug 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> One of the problems will be with the types who are dead against these changes and will use that vague wording to their advantage.
> 
> Remember when BEARDFORGEN came out and Snr mbr's were putting their own "spin" on it?  There wasn't much vague about beards and yet...
> 
> ...


Except that when you want to be detailed, and say things like “If it’s not in the manual you can’t do it,” you better have everything you possibly want to allow in that manual or it’ll lose credibility and people won’t follow it.  If you have enough details go cover all scenarios, it becomes a massive document that people can’t fully internalize and apply.  I prefer the “let people be adult, including those that enforce discipline” approach.  And course correct those that abuse (on both sides of the spectrum). My direction to people is to stop caring about how people look and focus on real discipline and performance (ie: can people do their job effectively and consistently).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Aug 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Except that when you want to be detailed, and say things like “If it’s not in the manual you can’t do it,” you better have everything you possibly want to allow in that manual or it’ll lose credibility and people won’t follow it.  If you have enough details go cover all scenarios, it because a massive document that people can’t fully internalize and apply.  I prefer the “let people be adult, including those that enforce discipline” approach.  And course correct those that abuse (on both sides of the spectrum.  My direction to people is to stop caring about how people look and focus on real discipline and performance (ie: can people do their job effectively and consistently).



I can't say there is anything there I disagree with, and hopefully we won't see a repeat of the BEARDFORGEN baloney on Sept 6th and moving forward.


----------



## SupersonicMax (11 Aug 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I can't say there is anything there I disagree with, and hopefully we won't see a repeat of the BEARDFORGEN baloney on Sept 6th and moving forward.


It will happen.  People on both sides will abuse. Amplifying directives will come out until the intent is followed. It is all part of change.


----------



## SupersonicMax (11 Aug 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I can't say there is anything there I disagree with, and hopefully we won't see a repeat of the BEARDFORGEN baloney on Sept 6th and moving forward.


I am contemplating putting a bit of colour in my hair and a bit of makeup though.  Maybe like this


----------



## btrudy (12 Aug 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> I am contemplating putting a bit of colour in my hair and a bit of makeup though.  Maybe like this
> 
> View attachment 72460



The makeup sounds like it'd be a hassle to do on a daily basis. Just get it tattooed on instead.


----------



## FSTO (12 Aug 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> The only item that would not also prohibit you from chewing gum in civilian clothes is this one:
> 
> 
> *Conduct.* Personnel in uniform shall comport themselves in a manner which projects a positive military appearance.
> You’d have a hard time convincing me that chewing gum projects a negative military appearance.


I’ve seen many whose gum chewing reminds me of a cow and her cud.


----------



## Kilted (12 Aug 2022)

I noticed that wigs are permitted.  That sounds like it could go very wrong.  Wait for someone to permanently attach a wig to the inside of their headdress.


----------



## btrudy (12 Aug 2022)

Kilted said:


> I noticed that wigs are permitted.  That sounds like it could go very wrong.  Wait for someone to permanently attach a wig to the inside of their headdress.



I'm not really sure why that would be considered going "very wrong". What's the problem here exactly?


----------



## Remius (12 Aug 2022)

Kilted said:


> I noticed that wigs are permitted.  That sounds like it could go very wrong.  Wait for someone to permanently attach a wig to the inside of their headdress.


If someone is doing that they are likely a problem to begin with.


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Aug 2022)

FSTO said:


> I’ve seen many whose gum chewing reminds me of a cow and her cud.


That’s a “savoir vivre” issue.  Basic etiquette.


----------



## Furniture (12 Aug 2022)

Kilted said:


> I noticed that wigs are permitted.  That sounds like it could go very wrong.  Wait for someone to permanently attach a wig to the inside of their headdress.


I think some Ozzy Man wigs would be quite fetching on parade...


----------



## btrudy (12 Aug 2022)

Furniture said:


> I think some Ozzy Man wigs would be quite fetching on parade... View attachment 72464


Would of course need to throw it in a bun or braids or something since it's below the collar. But otherwise definitely no issue there.


----------



## TacticalTea (12 Aug 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> The only item that would not also prohibit you from chewing gum in civilian clothes is this one:
> 
> 
> *Conduct.* Personnel in uniform shall comport themselves in a manner which projects a positive military appearance.
> You’d have a hard time convincing me that chewing gum projects a negative military appearance.


Funny, just yesterday I had to do _chew _someone out for _chewing _their gum in such a way. (badum-tss)

So I find you'd be easily convinced that it can, in fact, project a negative military appearance.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Aug 2022)

The part I've been wondering about lately is: If you decide to dye your hair a nice shade of purple during the week end, do you need a new ID card issued?


----------



## Furniture (12 Aug 2022)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> The part I've been wondering about lately is: If you decide to dye your hair a nice shade of purple during the week end, do you need a new ID card issued?


No, why would you? 

Your face is still clearly recognizable even if you shave your head, or dye it purple.


----------



## kev994 (12 Aug 2022)

Kilted said:


> I noticed that wigs are permitted.  That sounds like it could go very wrong.


That actually solves a lot of problems for me to be able to have blue hair the first day (the main issue being a lack of hair). I might even be able to get it in a sparkle colour.


----------



## Kilted (12 Aug 2022)

Furniture said:


> No, why would you?
> 
> Your face is still clearly recognizable even if you shave your head, or dye it purple.


I remember this was one of the reasons that senior people would oppose beards, because they believed that you had to get a new ID card if you grew a beard.


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Aug 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Funny, just yesterday I had to do _chew _someone out for _chewing _their gum in such a way. (badum-tss)
> 
> So I find you'd be easily convinced that it can, in fact, project a negative military appearance.


Chewing gum on its own isn’t necessarily projecting a negative military appearance.  The lack basic respect, courtesy and « savoir-vivre » is the issue, not the gum.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (13 Aug 2022)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> The part I've been wondering about lately is: If you decide to dye your hair a nice shade of purple during the week end, do you need a new ID card issued?


This has amounted to an old RSM's tale. The NDI 20 does not specify hair color on it. Temp IDs do, however, it's of very little importance. 

The NDSODs are pretty clear that so long as someone reasonably can be personally identified by facial or identifying features you're golden. 

If SSM McFuckface doesn't know what their troops look like because their hair is a different shade, we have bigger problems.


----------



## Furniture (13 Aug 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> This has amounted to an old RSM's tale. The NDI 20 does not specify hair color on it. Temp IDs do, however, it's of very little importance.
> 
> The NDSODs are pretty clear that so long as someone reasonably can be personally identified by facial or identifying features you're golden.
> 
> If SSM McFuckface doesn't know what their troops look like because their hair is a different shade, we have bigger problems.



The "You'll need a new ID card" is one of the classic "I want to make life difficult by process" moves bosses pull. It's up there with "Write a memo/BN/minute sheet"... Knowing full well that Jr. pers are usually intimidated by the process, so they'll back down.


----------



## btrudy (13 Aug 2022)

0


Furniture said:


> The "You'll need a new ID card" is one of the classic "I want to make life difficult by process" moves bosses pull. It's up there with "Write a memo/BN/minute sheet"... Knowing full well that Jr. pers are usually intimidated by the process, so they'll back down.



Oh boy. Maybe I'm not cynical enough. I had just assumed people spouting off stuff like that were just grossly incompetent. Didn't even consider the idea that they were actively being malicious.

And people wonder why we have a retention problem.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Aug 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> I am contemplating putting a bit of colour in my hair and a bit of makeup though.  Maybe like this
> 
> View attachment 72460


Are you looking to get posted to Ottawa?


----------



## kratz (13 Aug 2022)

It's not an ol' wives tale. In my early days, I was called up to the trade advisory's office. The CPO1 was ready to charge me for shaving my beard and looking different than my ID. The only part that saved my rear was the ID office appointment had been backed up and I hadn't changed / updated the ID yet. Another few days and I'd have extras ect... added to my career.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (13 Aug 2022)

And to think I was just facetious. 🤦‍♂️


----------



## btrudy (13 Aug 2022)

kratz said:


> It's not an ol' wives tale. In my early days, I was called up to the trade advisory's office. The CPO1 was ready to charge me for shaving my beard and looking different than my ID. The only part that saved my rear was the ID office appointment had been backed up and I hadn't changed / updated the ID yet. Another few days and I'd have extras ect... added to my career.



I think one thing should be perfectly clear here: the fact that a person has been threatened with a charge for violating a "regulation" is not actually at all proof that said regulation exists. Far far too many people go through their career never bothering to check regulations before acting, basing their actions on what they remember having been told once, whether or not said memory was either faulty, or just someone else who spouted B.S. without checking said regulations.


----------



## Furniture (13 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> I think one thing should be perfectly clear here: the fact that a person has been threatened with a charge for violating a "regulation" is not actually at all proof that said regulation exists. Far far too many people go through their career never bothering to check regulations before acting, basing their actions on what they remember having been told once, whether or not said memory was either faulty, or just someone else who spouted B.S. without checking said regulations.


I had a Snr NCM last week tell me that there was no rule about hands in pockets in the dress regs... I politely pointed them in the direction of Chapter 2 Section 2  Para 2.


----------



## Remius (13 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> I think one thing should be perfectly clear here: the fact that a person has been threatened with a charge for violating a "regulation" is not actually at all proof that said regulation exists. Far far too many people go through their career never bothering to check regulations before acting, basing their actions on what they remember having been told once, whether or not said memory was either faulty, or just someone else who spouted B.S. without checking said regulations.


The regulation did exist before beardforgen. Note d)


----------



## rmc_wannabe (13 Aug 2022)

Furniture said:


> I had a Snr NCM last week tell me that there was no rule about hands in pockets in the dress regs... I politely pointed them in the direction of Chapter 2 Section 2  Para 2.


You could legitimately fill tetrabytes of data at Tunney's Pasture with 60 years worth testimonials from troops who were threatened, admonished, reprimanded, or punished by Snr NCOs, Warrant Officers, or Officers that did not bother to read the regulations they claim they were enforcing.


----------



## Remius (13 Aug 2022)

Kilted said:


> I remember this was one of the reasons that senior people would oppose beards, because they believed that you had to get a new ID card if you grew a beard.


Because that rule existed.  See above.


----------



## Furniture (13 Aug 2022)

Remius said:


> The regulation did exist before beardforgen. Note d)
> 
> View attachment 72477


That strikes a point that is often missed. Many people learn a rule when they join, and fail to keep up to date on changes to the rules as time progresses.

In my occupation we have many layers of rules from the World Meteorological Organization, down to the section level SOPs. The rules often change, and people fail to keep up with them... In my inspections over the last four years I have found a shockingly large number of outdated publications in offices, and oddly some are kept because the leader liked the older rules more... After a brief chat, the old pubs tend to disappear.


----------



## Remius (13 Aug 2022)

Furniture said:


> That strikes a point that is often missed. Many people learn a rule when they join, and fail to keep up to date on changes to the rules as time progresses.
> 
> In my occupation we have many layers of rules from the World Meteorological Organization, down to the section level SOPs. The rules often change, and people fail to keep up with them... In my inspections over the last four years I have found a shockingly large number of outdated publications in offices, and oddly some are kept because the leader liked the older rules more... After a brief chat, the old pubs tend to disappear.


Absolutely.  But the tales of people being told to get their IDs updated we’re based on a time when that was a rule.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (13 Aug 2022)

Furniture said:


> That strikes a point that is often missed. Many people learn a rule when they join, and fail to keep up to date on changes to the rules as time progresses.
> 
> In my occupation we have many layers of rules from the World Meteorological Organization, down to the section level SOPs. The rules often change, and people fail to keep up with them... In my inspections over the last four years I have found a shockingly large number of outdated publications in offices, and oddly some are kept because the leader liked the older rules more... After a brief chat, the old pubs tend to disappear.


This is one reason I am so thankful for manditory annual inspections in my sphere of influence


----------



## Furniture (13 Aug 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> This is one reason I am so thankful for manditory annual inspections in my sphere of influence


As do we.

I get to travel around the country telling people what they are doing wrong, and what to do to fix it, without having to do any of the work.  😁

Edit: One of life's great pleasures is getting to say "I'm from Ottawa, I'm here to help", before making things more difficult.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Aug 2022)

Meanwhile....









						DoD memo from 1985 finally authorizes service members to wear mullets
					

It's about damn time.




					www.duffelblog.com


----------



## btrudy (13 Aug 2022)

Furniture said:


> I had a Snr NCM last week tell me that there was no rule about hands in pockets in the dress regs... I politely pointed them in the direction of Chapter 2 Section 2  Para 2.


Well, to be fair, if it happened last week, Monday was when they removed the prohibition against hands in pockets from the accessible version of the dress instructions, although the actual change isn't coming into force until Sept.


----------



## Furniture (13 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> Well, to be fair, if it happened last week, Monday was when they removed the prohibition against hands in pockets from the accessible version of the dress instructions, although the actual change isn't coming into force until Sept.


The conversation was about how there "never was" a rule, but it was funny that it came up the week that the rule actually changed.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Aug 2022)

My opinion - as a former RSM who is supposed to be a "dinosaur" I was often seen with my hands in my CAPDAT jacket pocket - the warm fluffy lining was great. Now mind you it was normally in the field that people saw me like this - with cam paint and a rifle as well.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Aug 2022)

Furniture said:


> The conversation was about how there "never was" a rule, but it was funny that it came up the week that the rule actually changed.



According to the powers that be in my neck of the woods, the dress Reg changes aren’t in effect until 06 sep.  

My Chief and I both agree that the change to 265 was done poorly in early Aug;  it’s now “in effect” even though it’s not in effect.  🤷🏻‍♂️


----------



## coolintheshade (30 Aug 2022)

Changes to the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions​Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Changes to the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions​On this page​
General
Details
General​*Why are changes to the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions being introduced now?*

Discussions have been ongoing for quite some time – the decision to update the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions was not made lightly, and much thought was given to the approach because of the exacting specifications as to the dress and appearance of our military in various scenarios. Many discussions were required, including with the Defence Advisory Groups, Gender Advisors, with current military members as well as the next generation of Canadians who will follow us. The bottom line is, the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions are about fifty years old and so the policy as a whole was overdue for revision. The appearance of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) has not kept pace with the Canadian society which it serves.

*When will the changes to the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions take effect?*

The updated Dress Instructions will take effect in early September 2022. This will allow time for CAF Members and leaders at all levels to review and understand the changes.

*Who makes the decisions about the Dress Instructions? Is there some process you follow or is your Dress and Ceremonial Section just doing what it feels is appropriate?*

In the matter of military dress and appearance, the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) and Chief of Military Personnel (through the Dress and Ceremonial Section of the Directorate of History and Heritage) are advised by:


the environmental Commanders of the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and Royal Canadian Air Force, who are the principal advisers on Navy, Army and Air Force distinctive environmental uniforms (DEU);
the National Defence Clothing and Dress Committee (NDCDC), chaired by Assistant CMP, which provides the focal point for coordinating the views of all environments and organizations, and approves routine changes within established policy (see paragraphs 11. to 14.); and
personnel branch advisers, who submit routine comments through the NDCDC.
In accordance with the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions, Commanders of Commands are delegated the authority to establish rules for the design and wear of their respective operational orders of dress.

Commanders at all levels are charged with ensuring that personnel under their command, whether environmentally or extra-environmentally employed, are dressed in accordance with the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions.

*What if a CAF member’s religious beliefs require them to dress in a way that isn’t covered by the new Dress Instructions? Or conversely, what if their appearance does not conform to the regulations outlined in Section 2 – Appearance but it conforms to their cultural beliefs?*

One of the goals of the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions update was to make the rules more inclusive and therefore limit the need for accommodations. However, accommodations will always be available to CAF members who have special requirements related to religious or spiritual belief. Members should communicate these requirements with their chain of command, as leaders retain the right to order restrictions based on the need to meet safety and operational requirements.

*The following text has been removed: “Behaviour such as chewing gum, slouching, placing hands in pockets, smoking or eating on the street and walking hand in hand, is forbidden.” Does that mean CAF members can now do all those things when in uniform?*

Pursuant to QR&O 17.02, the deportment and appearance of all ranks, in uniform or when wearing civilian attire, shall on all occasions reflect credit on the CAF and the individual. It is the responsibility and duty of all CAF members to ensure that, while in uniform, they comport themselves in a manner which projects a positive military appearance. Leaders at all levels have a role to play in this regard.

*What happens if a CAF member doesn’t follow the updated Dress Instructions?*

When a uniform is required to be worn, all CAF members shall wear the applicable uniform described in this manual in accordance with the instructions contained herein. Pursuant to QR&O 17.02, the deportment and appearance of all ranks, in uniform or when wearing civilian attire, shall on all occasions reflect credit on the CAF and the individual. It is the responsibility and duty of all CAF members to ensure that, by their vigilance, actions and example, the policies, regulations and instructions contained herein are adhered to.

*Are any more changes expected to the Dress Instructions?*

The update is occurring in three phases. The first phase involves a rewrite of critical policy where significant change is necessary (Section 2, Chapter 2); changing exclusive or gendered language to inclusive throughout the policy; and reducing the need for accommodations. Also as part of this phase, the Logistik online clothing catalogue was opened to all members in September 2021, so that clothing choice was no longer restricted by gender. Later phases of the update will revisit the functional authority changes from 2017 (where each Environment has its own specifications); change terminology in catalogues and supply manuals; and make design changes to the clothing itself.

Going forward, the intention is to continually review the updated Dress Instructions, in order to provide additional clarity where necessary and to include any elements previously overlooked.

Details​*Can the different gender design of the DEU uniforms be intermixed?*

DEUs are no longer gender based. Both catalogues are open to all members and they may be intermixed. CAF members may choose their uniform design, which must fit them properly/professionally, as per the Dress Instructions. Some restrictions may be imposed in certain circumstances such as on parade.

*References to gender have been removed but traditionally gendered items like skirts, nylons, and purses are still part of CAF dress. Does this mean that CAF members who identify as men can wear skirts?*

Yes, it does. The overall aim of the updated Canadian Forces Dress Instructions is to make the policy more inclusive and less prohibitive, and to allow CAF members increased freedom to make personal choices regarding their appearance, providing that safety and operational effectiveness are always maintained.

*Will recruits need to shave their head on basic training?*

No, the updated hair policy applies to all CAF members from recruitment to retirement.

*Is there a maximum length for hair?*

No, there are no restrictions on the length of hair. However, during parade and ceremony long hair must be tied when extending below the top/ridge of the shoulder or that extends below the service dress collar for ceremonial occasion. It must not prevent the proper wear of headdress and must not impede the visibility of the member’s face. Safety and operational requirements shall be met.

*What types of braids are considered acceptable?*

Any style braid(s) may be worn, as long as it remains in line with safety and operational requirements. Hair must be tied to ensure the headdress can be worn properly and the face is visible. A bun, braids, or ponytail are examples of appropriate ways to tie the hair.

*Is unnatural-coloured hair acceptable in ceremonial orders of dress? And must accessories match the colour of hair?*

Yes, the colouring of hair is permitted in all orders of dress unless it inhibits an operational duty. For example, bright coloured hair may have a negative operational impact during field operations or training. Leaders are invited to discuss with their members to find a simple, suitable accommodation, such as a scarf to cover the hair. Accessories do not have to match the colour of the member’s hair. However, all accessories shall meet safety and operational requirements and not must not discredit the CAF.

*Is there any change on the beard policy?*

Yes, the wearing of sideburns, beards, moustaches and goatees, or combination of style, is authorized for all members of the CAF from recruitment to release. There is no maximum or minimum length. Only, they must be kept neatly groomed and symmetrical in style while always complying with safety requirements and operational requirements.

*Can CAF members be asked to shave their facial hair?*

Yes, Commanders of Commands, Task Force Commanders, Formation Commanders and Commanding Officers retain the right to order restrictions on the wearing of facial hair to meet safety and operational requirements. This instruction does not supersede Federal or National safety codes or regulations.

*Since multiple facial hair styles are approved, must a person request a period of transition for each change in facial hair?*

No, as long as it is neat and evenly trimmed. For example, a member going from a goatee to a full beard should shave down the goatee so facial hair appears evenly and symmetrically trimmed.

*Are tattoos on the face permitted? And what is considered the face?*

The face is the front part of the head that extends from the forehead to the chin and from the anterior part of one ear to the other. Tattoos are permitted on the face as long as they conform to the regulations outlined in Section 2 – Appearance. “Tattoos that the member knows, or ought to know, are associated with criminal activities (e.g. criminal gangs), tattoos that promote and/or express, on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination as defined in the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA), the following: hatred, violence, discrimination, or harassment: and tattoos that a CAF member knows, or ought to know, promote and/or express: racism, sexism, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, ableism, or sexual explicit material” are not permitted.

*Are hoops and long earrings acceptable in uniform?*

Yes, ear piercings, hoops and spacers are authorized but can be no more than 2.5 cm in length from the bottom of the ear. Safety and operational requirements must always be met. Spacers must not extend 2.5 cm in diameter. In all ceremonial orders of dress (No. 1), only one single stud type (one in each ear) is permitted in the lobe not to exceed 1 cm.

*What jewelry is acceptable for ceremonial orders of dress?*

The following is acceptable:


Rings: a maximum of two rings which are not of a costume jewellery nature. Additional rings may only be worn when they indicate professional standing, such as an engineer, or are worn with a wedding band as a single set indicating betrothal or fidelity, e.g., an engagement or an anniversary ring. Rings shall not inhibit the execution of proper arms drill or cause an unsightly bulge in the gloves.
Necklaces and bracelets: shall not be visible;
Piercings: the only piercing jewellery authorized are single or single set of stud or single stone earrings (one in each ear) in the earlobe(s) only. Piercings are not permitted on the face. Earrings shall not exceed one centimetre square or diameter. Gauges/spacers shall not exceed 2.5 cm in diameter.
Plain tie-pins or clips or with a Canadian military insignia are permitted.
*In operational dress (order of dress 5), is there a limit to the number of ear-piercings that are acceptable?*

In general, there are no restrictions unless there is a safety issue or operational effectiveness may be jeopardized. You are encouraged to look at your environment Dress instruction.

*Following both the jewelry and piercings policy, can two piercings be connected with a chain in one ear?*

Yes, as long as both piercings and chain are within 2.5 cm in diameter or length, and safety or operational effectiveness is not compromised. However, only one single stud (max 1 cm) or spacer(max 2.5 cm) per ear is authorized in ceremonial orders of dress (order of dress No. 1).

*If a CAF member recently had their upper ear pierced and cannot remove this earring for 2 months, what should they do when asked to wear a ceremonial order of dress?*

Members should communicate with their chain of command to find a solution.

*Is piercing to the face (including the inside and outside the mouth) authorized?*

Not at this time. Ornaments worn with tongue piercing and lip piercing are associated with significant increased risk of localized gum recession, abnormal tooth wear, and tooth chipping/cracking. Although infections from piercing of the face are relatively minor when identified early and treated with appropriate antibiotics, the piercing of the tongue can on rare occasion be complicated by serious infection that could lead to irreversible complications.

*Can CAF members with eye lash extensions be ordered to have them removed?*

Yes, if they affect operational duties, as in the case of wearing night-vision goggles (NVGs).

*Are CAF members permitted to have long fingernails in uniform?*

Yes, long fingernails are permitted so long as they do not impede the member’s ability to perform their duties. An example of this is being unable to do weapons drills due to long fingernails. Safety and operational requirements must always be met.

*Are CAF members required to wear gloves at all times while wearing a toque?*

No, gloves do not need to be worn when the toque is worn or vice versa. The toque is authorized as alternative winter headdress and can be worn with all orders of dress.

*Are sunglasses permitted for wear on a ceremonial parade? Are transition (photochromic) lenses, mirrored lenses and clip-ons permitted?*

Yes, sunglasses are permitted for wear in all orders of dress, including ceremonial (No. 1) dress. Eyeglasses and sunglasses are permitted for wear in all orders of dress, including transition lenses, mirrored lenses, and clip-on lenses.

*Are backpacks required to be slung over both shoulders?*

A backpack can be worn slung over both shoulders, or over the left shoulder; this leaves the right arm free to salute.


----------



## coolintheshade (30 Aug 2022)

This update has been long overdue...I'll say even 10yrs late. Many young people who would have perhaps considered joining in the past, were put off by :
1. having to shave hair at bootcamp
2. coloured hair
3. face tattoos
4. ear studs/rings
5. having to do combo beard/moustache


----------



## dangerboy (30 Aug 2022)

coolintheshade said:


> This update has been long overdue...I'll say even 10yrs late. Many young people who would have perhaps considered joining in the past, were put off by :
> 1. having to shave hair at bootcamp
> 2. coloured hair
> 3. face tattoos
> ...


While I agree the dress regulations did need to be updated I have my doubts about the impact it will have on recruitment. Will be interesting to see in say 2 - 5 years from now if there has been any changes in recruiting.


----------



## coolintheshade (30 Aug 2022)

dangerboy said:


> While I agree the dress regulations did need to be updated I have my doubts about the impact it will have on recruitment. Will be interesting to see in say 2 - 5 years from now if there has been any changes in recruiting.


The whole sunglasses thing never made sense one iota. What difference does it make if you're wearing Gucci or Raybans. It's a sun day and you're on parade protecting your eyes.


----------



## FSTO (30 Aug 2022)

coolintheshade said:


> *Are backpacks required to be slung over both shoulders?*
> 
> A backpack can be worn slung over both shoulders, or over the left shoulder; this leaves the right arm free to salute.


Huzzah! Sanity at last!!!


----------



## coolintheshade (30 Aug 2022)

FSTO said:


> Huzzah! Sanity at last!!!


IKR.....lol


----------



## QV (30 Aug 2022)

People that are attracted to military life aren't usually the ones too fussed about face tats and purple hair. The dress regs could have been updated, but doing it to this extent is just theatre and will probably cause more problems than it solves.


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Aug 2022)

QV said:


> People that are attracted to military life aren't usually the ones too fussed about face tats and purple hair.



* SOF/Divers/NTOG/JTFX/All special people enter the chat *


----------



## coolintheshade (30 Aug 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> * SOF/Divers/NTOG/JTFX/All special people enter the chat *


All wearing Cargo pants, swat boots and ball cap to 'blend in'. lol


----------



## rmc_wannabe (30 Aug 2022)

coolintheshade said:


> All wearing Cargo pants, swat boots and ball cap to 'blend in'. lol


Fun story:

Later on in my tour in Afghan, I worked with a bunch of Locals on Camp. They were general labour types, but a lot of them were educated and trying to get better jobs. 

On the way to our compound, we would pass numerous other ones within KAF. They were able to rhyme off without fail all the nation's, units, etc. that were in each compound. 

When we would pass the ... more special....compound, they'd all start laughing. I asked my interpreter what was up, and he said they just find it hilarious the lengths these "SOF" pers go to "blend in" when they stick out like sore thumbs compared to everyone else.

 If they were to throw on normal uniforms and headress, they'd look like your average faceless grunt; most would be unable to tell if you were a cook, engineer, clerk, or recce sniper. The second they had the beards, tactical flows, and a 5.11 chest rig with cargo shorts, the jig is up.


----------



## btrudy (30 Aug 2022)

FSTO said:


> Huzzah! Sanity at last!!!


... but that part was introduced years ago.


QV said:


> People that are attracted to military life aren't usually the ones too fussed about face tats and purple hair. The dress regs could have been updated, but doing it to this extent is just theatre and will probably cause more problems than it solves.



Given our current recruitment and retention issues, I think it is quite clear that we need to put in effort to expand our recruiting pool beyond those who are just already "attracted to military life". This change can be a part of that initiative.

More to the point, I think it is overall more helpful to stop acting like a career in the military needs to become an all encompassing part of your lifestyle (including affects on appearance when off duty). Treat it more like a career and make it worth people's while instead of expecting to get a bunch of people who'll want to make it their entire life busting down our doors.


----------



## FSTO (30 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> but that part was introduced years ago.


Thanks Poindexter, I'm not nearly as invested as you in the dress regulations.


----------



## Quirky (30 Aug 2022)

QV said:


> The dress regs could have been updated, but doing it to this extent is just theatre and will probably cause more problems than it solves.


Exactly. This will attract a very small minority and alienate your base recruitment group - white males, who will find these new changes ridiculous. God speed CAF, it can’t get any worse, right?


----------



## QV (30 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> ... but that part was introduced years ago.
> 
> 
> Given our current recruitment and retention issues, I think it is quite clear that we need to put in effort to expand our recruiting pool beyond those who are just already "attracted to military life". This change can be a part of that initiative.
> ...



Recruiting and retention has very little to do with pink hair and what shoulder you wear your backpack on. Those are minor dissatisfiers. The larger problems are related to training, equipment, leadership issues.


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Aug 2022)

QV said:


> Recruiting and retention has very little to do with pink hair and what shoulder you wear your backpack on. Those are minor dissatisfiers. The larger problems are related to training, equipment, leadership issues.



Much like our burgeoning new firearms legislation this more about optics than effect.  Its the low hanging fruit that can be pointed too as taking action.


----------



## btrudy (30 Aug 2022)

QV said:


> Recruiting and retention has very little to do with pink hair and what shoulder you wear your backpack on. Those are minor dissatisfiers. The larger problems are related to training, equipment, leadership issues.


It's less about the specifics of pink or purple or whatever.

What it is primarily about is crafting an institution which is inherently as welcoming to people from all walks of life as possible. Removing any and all barriers that would make people think to themselves "maybe people like me aren't really accepted", whether they might be thinking that because of their neon green hair or the fact that they'd need to keep writing a memo and asking the CO permission every time they're posted to be able to wear their hair in accordance with their faith.




Quirky said:


> Exactly. This will attract a very small minority and alienate your base recruitment group - white males, who will find these new changes ridiculous. God speed CAF, it can’t get any worse, right?


We are very specifically trying to expand the "base recruitment group", so that others will feel welcome. The original dress instructions when they were written were very much done so viewing young  white males as the model, and dealt with others as a deviation from that norm.


Tha attitude both isn't acceptable from a moral standpoint, and also really isn't working anymore. We absolutely need to change ourselves so that we can be seen as an employer of choice by other demographic groups as well.


----------



## QV (30 Aug 2022)

After a few decades in the CAF my experience has been that the CAF was/is very welcoming to all types and kinds. We were all treated equally shitty in the beginning for very necessary reasons. The CAF is a great institution only damaged by political meddling and the odd bad apple.


----------



## Remius (30 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> It's less about the specifics of pink or purple or whatever.
> 
> What it is primarily about is crafting an institution which is inherently as welcoming to people from all walks of life as possible. Removing any and all barriers that would make people think to themselves "maybe people like me aren't really accepted", whether they might be thinking that because of their neon green hair or the fact that they'd need to keep writing a memo and asking the CO permission every time they're posted to be able to wear their hair in accordance with their faith.
> 
> ...


I’m a white male.  These dress regs don’t affect me one way or another.  It won’t make me quit nor will it keep me in. 

Want to be an employer of choice?  How about we change that to want to join a force that matters.  Right now it doesn’t seem like we as a force matter.  

What makes me want to quit is wasting my time on half assed training that leads to poor skills and ineffectiveness.  When I can’t bring a weapons det out with my platoons because all our guns are so old and broken and not replaced or can barely get ammo to do what we need to do to get better that makes me want to quit.  

I’m not embarrassed by pink hair.  I’m embarrassed that I have to tell troops that everything is notional. 

We want to become an inclusive military.  I have no issues with that.  I take issue with the fact that we are barely a military in the first place.  How about we fix that first.


----------



## FSTO (30 Aug 2022)

Remius said:


> We want to become an inclusive military. I have no issues with that. I take issue with the fact that we are barely a military in the first place. How about we fix that first.


THAT is the crux of the issue. All Canadian kids see is that our gear is broken, our military is short people, our government leaders seem not to care and there seems to be no indications that those 3 things are changing anytime soon. Why would any kid think about joining this clown show.


----------



## btrudy (30 Aug 2022)

Remius said:


> I’m a white male.  These dress regs don’t affect me one way or another.  It won’t make me quit nor will it keep me in.
> 
> Want to be an employer of choice?  How about we change that to want to join a force that matters.  Right now it doesn’t seem like we as a force matter.
> 
> ...



Might I kindly suggest we fix both? Changing the dress instructions will have literally no impact on the state of our equipment, etc.

But it will help out quite a bit at making folks who don't fit the current mold as well as you do in feeling a part of the team.



QV said:


> After a few decades in the CAF my experience has been that the CAF was/is very welcoming to all types and kinds. We were all treated equally shitty in the beginning for very necessary reasons. The CAF is a great institution only damaged by political meddling and the odd bad apple.



I call BS on that. Quite a bit of the treating everyone shitty is not at all necessary. The institution puts up barriers and regulations and enforces a hierarchical power structure which both protects "bad apples", but also largely aids in producing them to boot.

It is not a coincidence that a large chunk of the worst assholes I've ever met had also been promoted to positions of power in the CAF.


----------



## Remius (30 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> Might I kindly suggest we fix both? Changing the dress instructions will have literally no impact on the state of our equipment, etc.
> 
> But it will help out quite a bit at making folks who don't fit the current mold as well as you do in feeling a part of the team.
> 
> ...


Inclusion has always been a goal of the CAF believe it or not.  It’s why we modified the dress regs for turbans, burkas, aboriginal hair, etc etc.   We’ve had vegetarian, halal and kosher food options for decades now.  I think this is what QV is alluding to.  

The stuff in the current regs is about esthetic choices that have nothing to do with race, religion, gender etc etc.  As I said, I don’t care one way or another. 

Back in the early 2000s we were one of the only gvt organisations that was actually meeting its aboriginal hiring targets.  

So inclusion is nothing new. It’s ongoing, 

As for doing both I agree.  But until I see a pistol in my hand that wasn’t at Ortona or an updated “why we exist” policy papers I will lament that we aren’t focusing on more important stuff.


----------



## Weinie (30 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> Might I kindly suggest we fix both? Changing the dress instructions will have literally no impact on the state of our equipment, etc.
> 
> But it will help out quite a bit at making folks who don't fit the current mold as well as you do in feeling a part of the team.
> 
> ...


And I call BS on that. If your only exposure to the real world has been the CAF, then welcome to reality, Johnnie. Your disdain is noted, but not really relevant.


----------



## btrudy (30 Aug 2022)

Remius said:


> Inclusion has always been a goal of the CAF believe it or not.  It’s why we modified the dress regs for turbans, burkas, aboriginal hair, etc etc.   We’ve had vegetarian, halal and kosher food options for decades now.  I think this is what QV is alluding to.
> 
> The stuff in the current regs is about esthetic choices that have nothing to do with race, religion, gender etc etc.  As I said, I don’t care one way or another.
> 
> ...


"Inclusion" does not solely refer to race, religion, gender, etc. There are a wide variety of people who would feel unwelcome for reasons u related to those under the old regulations, who will now instead not need to change anything about themselves to fit in.

Thus the new regulations are inherently far more inclusive.


I'd also argue the old rules did a shitty job of providing accommodations for religion, etc, given the requirement to re-request said accommodations every time someone was posted.


----------



## QV (30 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> I call BS on that. Quite a bit of the treating everyone shitty is not at all necessary. The institution puts up barriers and regulations and enforces a hierarchical power structure which both protects "bad apples", but also largely aids in producing them to boot.
> 
> It is not a coincidence that a large chunk of the worst assholes I've ever met had also been promoted to positions of power in the CAF.



By "treating everyone shitty" I meant the rigors of basic training and battle school for example. You know, when someone yells at you for any reason whatsoever in the training environment? That weeded out a lot of people that needed to be weeded out.

The "bad leadership" equation is another topic altogether and I agree there is that too, just like any other organization the world over.


----------



## FSTO (30 Aug 2022)

If you meet an asshole in the morning, you've met an asshole. If your meeting assholes all day? Then maybe you're the asshole?

This Raylan Givens quote is useful in all sorts of organizations.


----------



## btrudy (30 Aug 2022)

QV said:


> By "treating everyone shitty" I meant the rigors of basic training and battle school for example. You know, when someone yells at you for any reason whatsoever in the training environment? That weeded out a lot of people that needed to be weeded out.
> 
> The "bad leadership" equation is another topic altogether and I agree there is that too, just like any other organization the world over.


When we start them out in an environment which defaults to yelling any time there is a "screw up" (and let's face it, quite a lot of the time said screw up is merely a failure to meet a purposefully set unattainable goal), that sets the standard from the get go for what is considered good leadership, leading to a whole lot of toxicity down the line.

Yelling doesn't make people better at their jobs. Weeding people out because you didn't really bother trying to make them better, and just bellowed instead also means we're wasting a lot of opportunity.


The CAF as a whole needs to get better at mentorship, especially at the very beginning.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Aug 2022)

FSTO said:


> THAT is the crux of the issue. All Canadian kids see is that our gear is broken, our military is short people, our government leaders seem not to care and there seems to be no indications that those 3 things are changing anytime soon. Why would any kid think about joining this clown show.


Imagine what our allies think of us as a fighting force…


----------



## QV (30 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> When we start them out in an environment which defaults to yelling any time there is a "screw up" (and let's face it, quite a lot of the time said screw up is merely a failure to meet a purposefully set unattainable goal), that sets the standard from the get go for what is considered good leadership, leading to a whole lot of toxicity down the line.
> 
> Yelling doesn't make people better at their jobs. Weeding people out because you didn't really bother trying to make them better, and just bellowed instead also means we're wasting a lot of opportunity.
> 
> ...


Substitute "yelling" for creating stressful and challenging environment that includes the application of raised voices and loud noises. Applying hardship is necessary when attempting to turn civilians into soldiers who will hopefully withstand the rigors of war. Unlimited liability doesn't come cheaply. You can mentor later after you've sorted the wheat from the chaff.


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> When we start them out in an environment which defaults to yelling any time there is a "screw up" (and let's face it, quite a lot of the time said screw up is merely a failure to meet a purposefully set unattainable goal), that sets the standard from the get go for what is considered good leadership, leading to a whole lot of toxicity down the line.
> 
> Yelling doesn't make people better at their jobs. Weeding people out because you didn't really bother trying to make them better, and just bellowed instead also means we're wasting a lot of opportunity.
> 
> ...



The idea behind it is to create a safe but adverse and stressful environment to judge the candidates ability's to follow orders or solve minor problems in. 

Its a tried, tested and truth method all over the world.  Dumbing it down will only bite from behind us on the other side.


----------



## Remius (30 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> When we start them out in an environment which defaults to yelling any time there is a "screw up" (and let's face it, quite a lot of the time said screw up is merely a failure to meet a purposefully set unattainable goal), that sets the standard from the get go for what is considered good leadership, leading to a whole lot of toxicity down the line.
> 
> Yelling doesn't make people better at their jobs. Weeding people out because you didn't really bother trying to make them better, and just bellowed instead also means we're wasting a lot of opportunity.
> 
> ...


Quick question.  Have you ever instructed on a basic training or junior leadership course?


----------



## Kilted (30 Aug 2022)

QV said:


> Substitute "yelling" for creating stressful and challenging environment that includes the application of raised voices and loud noises. Applying hardship is necessary when attempting to turn civilians into soldiers who will hopefully withstand the rigors of war. Unlimited liability doesn't come cheaply. You can mentor later after you've sorted the wheat from the chaff.


Although, unfortunately, the way things are going, raising your voice for any reason will soon be considered harassment. RSO's on ranges will soon need to get special permission from their Brigade commander to talk loud enough for troops to hear them on the range.


----------



## coolintheshade (30 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> ... but that part was introduced years ago.
> 
> 
> Given our current recruitment and retention issues, I think it is quite clear that we need to put in effort to expand our recruiting pool beyond those who are just already "attracted to military life". This change can be a part of that initiative.
> ...


Bingo.....wiener wiener, Oktoberfest dinner


----------



## coolintheshade (30 Aug 2022)

Quirky said:


> Exactly. This will attract a very small minority and alienate your base recruitment group - white males, who will find these new changes ridiculous. God speed CAF, it can’t get any worse, right?


Huh, come again and what does this even mean? So, CAF should just continue to keep it all 'WHITE' then like they've always done, IOT appease white males? I guess this is while most police forces are full of white males. Got it


----------



## Navy_Pete (30 Aug 2022)

> *Is there any change on the beard policy?*
> 
> Yes, the wearing of sideburns, beards, moustaches and goatees, or combination of style, is authorized for all members of the CAF from recruitment to release. There is no maximum or minimum length. Only, they must be kept neatly groomed and symmetrical in style while always complying with safety requirements and operational requirements.
> 
> ...



And after almost a year, still radio silence from RCN safety reminding COs that anyone wearing an SCBA has to be clean shaven. At this point will be sitting back with popcorn on 6 Sept to see if this gets escalated right to the MND if the RCN decides to not follow CAF policy/Canadian OSHA requirements.


----------



## QV (30 Aug 2022)

coolintheshade said:


> Huh, come again and what does this even mean? So, CAF should just continue to keep it all 'WHITE' then like they've always done, IOT appease white males? I guess this is while most police forces are full of white males. Got it


That is not an honest inference. The CAF and police forces are "full of white males" because of two general facts: demographics and occupations that interest males.


----------



## Remius (30 Aug 2022)

QV said:


> That is not an honest inference. The CAF and police forces are "full of white males" because of two general facts: demographics and occupations that interest males.


Anecdotal story on my part.  In another lifetime OPS recruiters took a recruiter course we were running. Their applicant pool had dried up and had no waiting lists and the quality of applicants had dropped significantly.  They needed to change things up.

Several reasons for that were identified. 

1) they wrongfully assumed that people would come to them.
2) they never attended local recruiting or job fairs.  Peel regional, OPP and even the Edmonton police would be present at Ottawa U and Carleton U job fairs and OPS was never there 
3) their recruiting presentation was all about the applicant process and not about what made OPS special or different 

And…

4) they had the reputation that “white males” need not apply.  So they didn’t.  And they all went to the competition.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> When we start them out in an environment which defaults to yelling any time there is a "screw up" (and let's face it, quite a lot of the time said screw up is merely a failure to meet a purposefully set unattainable goal), that sets the standard from the get go for what is considered good leadership, leading to a whole lot of toxicity down the line.
> 
> Yelling doesn't make people better at their jobs. Weeding people out because you didn't really bother trying to make them better, and just bellowed instead also means we're wasting a lot of opportunity.
> 
> ...


I supported the Officer Training School at CFB Chilliwack, there was minimal yelling in the field and on task, but there was a lot of pressure on them to perform. Tack on very full days for the candidates, that is what cracked many of them, time pressure and not yelling.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Aug 2022)

coolintheshade said:


> Huh, come again and what does this even mean? So, CAF should just continue to keep it all 'WHITE' then like they've always done, IOT appease white males? I guess this is while most police forces are full of white males. Got it


You really need to get out more and interact with police forces in Canada and not just watch movies about them. I think you find them a very diverse group.


----------



## coolintheshade (30 Aug 2022)

QV said:


> That is not an honest inference. The CAF and police forces are "full of white males" because of two general facts: *demographics and occupations that interest males.*


Not the fact that police forces is full of nepotism and they subtle discriminate during hiring???? OK, denial isn't just a river in Africa. Keep head buried in sand.


----------



## Navy_Pete (30 Aug 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> I supported the Officer Training School at CFB Chilliwack, there was minimal yelling in the field and on task, but there was a lot of pressure on them to perform. Tack on very full days for the candidates, that is what cracked many of them, time pressure and not yelling.


I don't know why people think yelling is the most effective way to put pressure on folks; usually you can do it a lot more effectively by being calm but having deadlines, concurrent requirements, large amounts of info being thrown at you etc. My days at basic are almost 18 years ago, and that's what they did then, so I think a lot of the BS comes from movies vice reality.

After a while, it loses it's effectiveness anyway. If you respect the person you work for/with, really no worse feeling than dropping the ball and disappointing them, and that's way more motivating than volume.


----------



## coolintheshade (30 Aug 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I don't know why people think yelling is the most effective way to put pressure on folks; usually you can do it a lot more effectively by being calm but having deadlines, concurrent requirements, large amounts of info being thrown at you etc. My days at basic are almost 18 years ago, and that's what they did then, so I think a lot of the BS comes from movies vice reality.
> 
> After a while, it loses it's effectiveness anyway. If you respect the person you work for/with, really no worse feeling than dropping the ball and disappointing them, and that's way more motivating than volume.


There is a saying....empty barrels make the loudest noise.


----------



## Remius (30 Aug 2022)

coolintheshade said:


> Not the fact that police forces is full of nepotism and they subtle discriminate during hiring???? OK, denial isn't just a river in Africa. Keep head buried in sand.


Did you get turned down in a process?


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> When we start them out in an environment which defaults to yelling any time there is a "screw up" (and let's face it, quite a lot of the time said screw up is merely a failure to meet a purposefully set unattainable goal),


That's called stress inoculation. You're conditioning people to be able to think, respond, and act when they're scared, intimidated, and confused.

Giving people impossible tasks to complete teaches them the military won't always be fair, and how to fail without turning into a blubbering mess.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Aug 2022)

coolintheshade said:


> There is a saying....empty barrels make the loudest noise.


Ironically, the saying is empty barrels make the most noise.


----------



## mariomike (30 Aug 2022)

coolintheshade said:


> There is a saying....empty barrels make the loudest noise.





Jarnhamar said:


> Ironically, the saying is empty barrels make the most noise.



Written both ways.


			"empty barrels make the loudest noise" - Google Search


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Aug 2022)

mariomike said:


> Written both ways.
> 
> 
> "empty barrels make the loudest noise" - Google Search


Fake news.


----------



## FSTO (30 Aug 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> I supported the Officer Training School at CFB Chilliwack, there was minimal yelling in the field and on task, but there was a lot of pressure on them to perform. Tack on very full days for the candidates, that is what cracked many of them, time pressure and not yelling.


I was a Officer Recruit there in 89. Don't really remember any yelling at all, but a lot of timings to be met with little to no deviation.


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Aug 2022)

FSTO said:


> I was a Officer Recruit there in 89. Don't really remember any yelling at all, but a lot of timings to be met with little to no deviation.


No, putting the screws to them was my job as enemy force section commander in Chilcotin for their Phase whatever training.  Gooood tiiimes.


----------



## kev994 (30 Aug 2022)

QV said:


> People that are attracted to military life aren't usually the ones too fussed about face tats and purple hair. The dress regs could have been updated, but doing it to this extent is just theatre and will probably cause more problems than it solves.


I think you’re missing the point. Check out all the new beard styles I could go for:








						Every Bald Man Should Grow a Beard. Here are the 19 Best Styles to Try.
					

Take a cue from the leading men of Hollywood to maximize your facial hair potential.




					www.menshealth.com


----------



## SupersonicMax (30 Aug 2022)

QV said:


> People that are attracted to military life aren't usually the ones too fussed about face tats and purple hair. The dress regs could have been updated, but doing it to this extent is just theatre and will probably cause more problems than it solves.


Good.  They should then not be too fussed about what others sport in terms of face tats and purple hair.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Aug 2022)

The doughnut.


----------



## FSTO (30 Aug 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> No, putting the screws to them was my job as enemy force section commander in Chilcotin for their Phase whatever training.  Gooood tiiimes.



Our platoon must have hid really well. Never got attacked once!!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Aug 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I don't know why people think yelling is the most effective way to put pressure on folks; usually you can do it a lot more effectively by being calm but having deadlines, concurrent requirements, large amounts of info being thrown at you etc. My days at basic are almost 18 years ago, and that's what they did then, so I think a lot of the BS comes from movies vice reality.
> 
> After a while, it loses it's effectiveness anyway. If you respect the person you work for/with, really no worse feeling than dropping the ball and disappointing them, and that's way more motivating than volume.



And sometimes yelling is very effective at accomplishing the goal of pushing trainees to the limit and seeing what breaks.  

Fighting withdrawal out of a defensive position, covering Arty fire about to come in, someone can’t get their collective shit together.  Yelling can be very appropriate.

Cruising along in an AFV, CC saying “driver prepare to halt” and yelling “HALT!” over ICS requires 2 different reactions.

People advocating “yelling is never appropriate”
are as far off target as those who yell all the time.


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Aug 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> And sometimes yelling is very effective at accomplishing the goal of pushing trainees to the limit and seeing what breaks.
> 
> Fighting withdrawal out of a defensive position, covering Arty fire about to come in, someone can’t get their collective shit together.  Yelling can be very appropriate.
> 
> ...


Try being polite and NOT yell when drill - I know some of you are going to hate this - is being conducted improperly and the troops need a good session of counselling.
We had an RSM in 2VP that told the Escort to the Colours they couldn't escort a fucking hot dog stand. The drill improved noticeably.


----------



## btrudy (31 Aug 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> That's called stress inoculation. You're conditioning people to be able to think, respond, and act when they're scared, intimidated, and confused.
> 
> Giving people impossible tasks to complete teaches them the military won't always be fair, and how to fail without turning into a blubbering mess.



Yes, I get that inducing stress to see how people react is needed. What isn't needed is being a dick about it all the time. When the example that you set from the get-go is that the* primary *method used to "lead" people is by yelling and otherwise forming an toxic workplace environment, you're teaching them from the start that that's how they should be leading people too. And then they go forth, and spend their career making people around them miserable, because that's what you taught them to do. 

Yelling has its place, but should be used very very sparingly. 



Navy_Pete said:


> And after almost a year, still radio silence from RCN safety reminding COs that anyone wearing an SCBA has to be clean shaven. At this point will be sitting back with popcorn on 6 Sept to see if this gets escalated right to the MND if the RCN decides to not follow CAF policy/Canadian OSHA requirements.



Honestly, I still don't know why you're under the impression this is an issue. The dress instructions update doesn't in any way supercede or overwrite existing policy implemented for safety reasons, and instead very clearly and explicitly outlines that safety is a great reason to impose such restrictions, *specifically* mentioning the respiratory health policy as an example of such.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> Yes, I get that inducing stress to see how people react is needed. *What isn't needed is being a dick about it all the time. *When the example that you set from the get-go is that the* primary *method used to "lead" people is by yelling and otherwise forming an toxic workplace environment, you're teaching them from the start that that's how they should be leading people too. And then they go forth, and spend their career making people around them miserable, because that's what you taught them to do.



You're changing the story a bit here. You initially said:



			
				btrudy said:
			
		

> When we start them out in an environment which* defaults to yelling any time there is a "screw up" *(and let's face it, quite a lot of the time said screw up is merely a failure to meet a purposefully set unattainable goal), that sets the standard from the get go for what is considered good leadership, leading to a whole lot of toxicity down the line.



There's a difference between yelling when there is a screw up and yelling all the time.

Should we really insult all CAF recruits and presume they'll spend the rest of their career mimicking any poor leadership habits they observed in basic training? I haven't. I assume you haven't either, have you?

Most trade schools ramp down the yelling and inspections once students graduate basic training. Even things for infantry privates ramp down when they get to their battalions.

This almost feels like one of those "everyone over the rank of corporal is terrible" things.


----------



## Navy_Pete (31 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> Honestly, I still don't know why you're under the impression this is an issue. The dress instructions update doesn't in any way supercede or overwrite existing policy implemented for safety reasons, and instead very clearly and explicitly outlines that safety is a great reason to impose such restrictions, *specifically* mentioning the respiratory health policy as an example of such.


Because existing RCN orders already don't follow the safety policy or even have them as a reference.

A big chunk of the RCN operational side that makes these decisions has no idea what the safety rules are, and don't listen to either the fire marshall or the their own fire safety experts.

So it's really hard to expect COs, Fleet Commanders etc to follow direction they don't know exist, and the entire reason there is a safety org is to pass that on.

It's almost like we took fire fighters off the ships, then got rid of hull techs, and are left with a big knowledge/expertise gap or something.


----------



## ArmyRick (31 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> Yes, I get that inducing stress to see how people react is needed. What isn't needed is being a dick about it all the time. When the example that you set from the get-go is that the* primary *method used to "lead" people is by yelling and otherwise forming an toxic workplace environment, you're teaching them from the start that that's how they should be leading people too. And then they go forth, and spend their career making people around them miserable, because that's what you taught them to do.
> 
> Yelling has its place, but should be used very very sparingly.
> 
> ...


I am very curious. What is it you do in the Forces?


----------



## FSTO (31 Aug 2022)

ArmyRick said:


> What is it you do in the Forces?


?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (31 Aug 2022)

ArmyRick said:


> I am very curious. What is it you do in the Forces?


I would honestly like to know as well. It would help establish credibility and also give some perspective to some of your other points and positions with this matter.


----------



## KevinB (31 Aug 2022)

ArmyRick said:


> I am very curious. What is it you do in the Forces?


I’m betting RCA Band…


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (31 Aug 2022)

KevinB said:


> I’m betting RCA Band…



But then, wouldn't he/she/they be used to yelling? After all, the Band Conductor has to be heard over the noise of the guns.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (31 Aug 2022)

With the direction this thread is taking, I couldn't resist:


----------



## OldSolduer (31 Aug 2022)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> With the direction this thread is taking, I couldn't resist:


Awesome


----------



## lenaitch (31 Aug 2022)

Some of the goals of drill are to get an otherwise disparate group of recent civilian individuals, where such requirements are not normally important, to function in unity, and to instill the need to follow commands when they are given; not slightly before or slightly after - exactly as instructed at the moment commanded.  Admittedly, it might be of somewhat less significant than in the days of standing lines of battle and volley fire.

I've not been through military training, but police recruit training back in the day seemed, by all accounts, to have many similarities.  Instructors had a limited amount of time to try to turn you into something you were not and impart skills that could perhaps, I don't know, save your life.  Once that bridge had been crossed, training became much less 'confrontational'.  Some might argue that is even more relevant today.  Back in the day, there was generally much more deference to authority and respect for those with skills and knowledge to impart.  Now, people feel that their view is important simply by virtue of them having one, and any direction that they weren't part of forming is invalid.  Heck of a way to run a war.


----------



## btrudy (31 Aug 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I would honestly like to know as well. It would help establish credibility and also give some perspective to some of your other points and positions with this matter.


I have in the past seen people on this forum threatening to contact people's CO's when they disagreed with opinions stated, so yeah, I think I'll pass on divulging too much info. Simply put, ya'll can't be trusted. 



Oldgateboatdriver said:


> But then, wouldn't he/she/they be used to yelling? After all, the Band Conductor has to be heard over the noise of the guns.


Surely you can distinguish between yelling at someone versus yelling to be heard.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> I have in the past seen people on this forum threatening to contact people's CO's when they disagreed with opinions stated



What?  I hope that was reported to forum staff. 



btrudy said:


> , so yeah, I think I'll pass on divulging too much info. Simply put, ya'll can't be trusted.



Maybe at least your trade/branch might help?

For the record, I’m not too worried about anyone contacting my CO.  If someone was to say they were telling my wife…well, now we are talking about someone who has absolute power over me.  Checkmate.  😬


----------



## btrudy (31 Aug 2022)

lenaitch said:


> Some might argue that is even more relevant today.  Back in the day, there was generally much more deference to authority and respect for those with skills and knowledge to impart.  Now, people feel that their view is important simply by virtue of them having one, and any direction that they weren't part of forming is invalid.  Heck of a way to run a war.



I really don't get why there's such resistance to the notion of changing the way the military does things in light of changing societal norms. The the way you've been doing things forever isn't working as well because of a mis-match between how the people you're recruiting expect to be treated, the only real option is to change the way you're doing things. Because you're not going to change how the people you're recruiting expect to be treated: we don't have the option of recruiting from other places or using a time machine to recruit from eras where people would have responded better to it. 

The military can't change society. We need to work with the Canadian populace that we've got. And if we continue to refuse to adapt to what society expects from employers, all we'll do is continue to exacerbate our ongoing recruitment and retention crisis.


----------



## mariomike (31 Aug 2022)

lenaitch said:


> Back in the day, there was generally much more deference to authority and respect for those with skills and knowledge to impart.



Back in the day, I think the police and military tended to hire younger applicants. I joined the PRes when I was 16.

Perhaps youngsters were more "moldable" to military / police culture?

More likely to have - relatively - simple background checks than applicants with more "life experience".


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Aug 2022)

There are some things that must remain the same.  Authority over subordinates.  Obedience to orders, rules, policy.

The people joining the military need to understand they need to change more than anything to join; and that they can ultimately be ordered to lay down their lives for the Service.

That is the line in the sand that can’t change.  Ever.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Aug 2022)

On a different note; Tuesday next week is go day.   I am hoping by Thursday of next week this isn’t a topic of import anymore.  🙂


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (31 Aug 2022)

And surely, BTrudy, you can distinguish between a statement of fact and a joke.

And BTW, unless ther are only two or three of you in the CAF, admitting that you are, say an infanteer with three or four year experience, or whatever else is unlikely to identify you in any way.

Also, BTW, in my 25 years in, I have raised my voice only once at someone on the bridge of a ship, and that was to get an OOW to act NOW as he was about to run us aground. So, you are preaching to the choir here.

Also, no matter how "nicely" the current generation would like to be treated, they are entering a profession where people on the other side will shoot at them with the aim of killing or maiming them. They have to be prepared for things not nice and to have their feelings seriously agressed.

Unless things have changed from my days, the "yelling" in basic is never made personnal - that is it does not attack the person in his/her/their being, but is directed at stressing through hurrying up or attacking the actual deportment that was incorrect with a view to correct it. For instance, we would not call a recruit an "armless baboon", but might say to a recruit "I've seen armless baboons who could tie a better square knot".  Look at the statements carefully and you will note the important nuance.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Aug 2022)

Also, go work at an oil rig or a remote construction camp, chances are if your slow or doing something stupid you will get yelled at and dumped upon. Jobs with high risks, isolation and living closely together, will often bring out that sort of behaviour.


----------



## btrudy (31 Aug 2022)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Unless things have changed from my days, the "yelling" in basic is never made personnal - that is it does not attack the person in his/her/their being, but is directed at stressing through hurrying up or attacking the actual deportment that was incorrect with a view to correct it. For instance, we would not call a recruit an "armless baboon", but might say to a recruit "I've seen armless baboons who could tie a better square knot".  Look at the statements carefully and you will note the important nuance.



That is absolutely a distinction without a difference. Adding weasel words to your insults doesn't in any way negate the impact it has on those being insulted.


----------



## mariomike (31 Aug 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Also, go work at an oil rig or a remote construction camp, chances are if your slow or doing something stupid you will get yelled at and dumped upon.



Typical 9-1-1 shift.


----------



## Remius (31 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> I have in the past seen people on this forum threatening to contact people's CO's when they disagreed with opinions stated, so yeah, I think I'll pass on divulging too much info. Simply put, ya'll can't be trusted.
> 
> 
> Surely you can distinguish between yelling at someone versus yelling to be heard.


I’ve never seen nor heard of that happening here.

Your trade is hardly anything anyone can identify you with. It’s perspective.  When I asked if you’veever taught basic or junior leadership it was to see if you’ve been in both sides of the fence and clearly you haven’t so your generalized comments seem to be coming from personal experience and not from a wider range.  You seem to have a chip on your shoulder and think that good feelings and smiles will fix everything.  It won’t.

Surely you can distinguish between yelling to motivate and yelling to insult.  Some people can’t and that is why their feelings get hurt.


----------



## Weinie (31 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> That is absolutely a distinction without a difference. Adding weasel words to your insults doesn't in any way negate the impact it has on those being insulted.


Who's now adding weasel words?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (31 Aug 2022)

@btrudy  I haven't the time nor the inclination to start a witch hunt about a differing opinion. I was merely trying to ascertain the context from which you speak your lived truth. If that is a Bridge Too Far for you, then I highly suggest you refrain from adding further to the conversation.

I did BMQ at CFLRS in 2006. I was yelled at for performance deficiencies and none of it was in a demeaning or personal nature. Same thing for SQ in Meaford in 2007. Same thing again for Sig Op QL3/5 in 2007/10 respectively. Hell even PLQ in 2017 was more self induced hardship than anything else. Even as an instructor/support staff at CFSCE from 2020-22 it was made clear that any personal insults or attacks on students would be dealt with personally by the SCWO.

This is my lived experience and it hasn't caused me any lasting damage. On the contrary, I am positive it steeled my demeanor when things actually got chaotic overseas.

If you have anything relevant to add that counters my lived and the collectively shared experience of people on this forum, give'r. If you are unwilling to provide context to your experience, not even a trade, branch, or Command; well that is unfortunate, and I wish you the best. I will, however, take your opinion with a massive grain of salt; as I have no idea if you have walked anywhere near the same path as some of us here, yet are the loudest at compaining your feet hurt.


----------



## Rd651 (31 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> I have in the past seen people on this forum threatening to contact people's CO's when they disagreed with opinions stated, so yeah, I think I'll pass on divulging too much info. Simply put, ya'll can't be trusted.
> 
> 
> Surely you can distinguish between yelling at someone versus yelling to be heard.


So BTurdy, are you going to tell the forum your trade/branch as asked, or continue to deflect and troll???


----------



## Kilted (31 Aug 2022)

KevinB said:


> I’m betting RCA Band…


Navy League Cadet Officer?


----------



## Rd651 (31 Aug 2022)

Kilted said:


> Navy League Cadet Officer?


I'm betting crickets from that person on the ask!!


----------



## btrudy (31 Aug 2022)

Rd651 said:


> So BTurdy, are you going to tell the forum your trade/branch as asked, or continue to deflect and troll???



Having opinions that aren't shared by most people here is hardly the same thing as trolling. If you disagree with me, that's fine. I'm Reg Force Navy, no particular desire to share any more than that; I hardly see how it reasonably affects what I'm saying anyways.


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Aug 2022)

> I noticed that wigs are permitted.



Powdered wigs have a long history of presenting a positive military appearance.


----------



## Staff Weenie (31 Aug 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Powdered wigs have a long history of presenting a positive military appearance.


Quiet man, somebody might be listening for good ideas!


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Aug 2022)

Remius said:


> I’ve never seen nor heard of that happening here.


btrudy isn't wrong on that one. That mentality went away quite some time ago when the site owner addressed it. Not that it makes it better but I've had similar happen to me on facebook groups and reddit.


----------



## Remius (31 Aug 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> btrudy isn't wrong on that one. That mentality went away quite some time ago when the site owner addressed it. Not that it makes it better but I've had similar happen to me on facebook groups and reddit.


That’s pretty dumb unless it’s something absolutely egregious.  Opinions are not that.


----------



## Rd651 (31 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> Having opinions that aren't shared by most people here is hardly the same thing as trolling. If you disagree with me, that's fine. I'm Reg Force Navy, no particular desire to share any more than that; I hardly see how it reasonably affects what I'm saying anyways.


Ok I'll give you that! Thanks for replying instead of crickets...one last question if you don't mind. Did you attend basic training as Reg Force or did you transfer with a basic Trg by-pass (direct entry) from the Reserves?? I ask this because it matters to some of the context of previous posts that you may not understand, IE: yelling at the troops to motivate them and instill teamwork!!


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> I hardly see how it reasonably affects what I'm saying anyways.


I'm all aboard with not giving any personal details away considering how vindictive our chains of command can be. 

When someone is in a discussion and saying things like "in my experience" then your experience and background is probably relevant to the discussion. It's fine if you're not willing to give that info up but you also can't fault people for not taking your opinion as seriously.


----------



## Remius (31 Aug 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Powdered wigs have a long history of presenting a positive military appearance.


And keeping lice away.


----------



## btrudy (31 Aug 2022)

Rd651 said:


> Ok I'll give you that! Thanks for replying instead of crickets...one last question if you don't mind. Did you attend basic training as Reg Force or did you transfer with a basic Trg by-pass (direct entry) from the Reserves?? I ask this because it matters to some of the context of previous posts that you may not understand, IE: yelling at the troops to motivate them and instill teamwork!!



Reg Force the entire time.



Brad Sallows said:


> Powdered wigs have a long history of presenting a positive military appearance.



I wonder if the VAN Wardroom still has their collection of powdered wigs (to better emulate Captain Vancouver of course)


----------



## Rd651 (31 Aug 2022)

btrudy said:


> Reg Force the entire time.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the VAN Wardroom still has their collection of powdered wigs (to better emulate Captain Vancouver of course)


Thanks for the reply and your Ref to VAN tells you sailed on her and are west coast...


----------



## Rd651 (31 Aug 2022)

Rd651 said:


> Thanks for the reply and your Ref to VAN tells you sailed on her and are west coast...


I've sailed on the East coast and have many ships hats....


----------



## Eaglelord17 (1 Sep 2022)

Quirky said:


> Exactly. This will attract a very small minority and alienate your base recruitment group - white males, who will find these new changes ridiculous. God speed CAF, it can’t get any worse, right?


It is not that white males are their primary recruitment group, it is rural males. Most rural males in this country just happen to be white and conservative in mannerisms. This makes sense since, A) immigrants tend not to be moving into rural areas and B) If you are rural you tend to have to be self sufficient, which tends to align more with more conservative policies and actions than what most urbanites do.


btrudy said:


> Given our current recruitment and retention issues, I think it is quite clear that we need to put in effort to expand our recruiting pool beyond those who are just already "attracted to military life". This change can be a part of that initiative.
> More to the point, I think it is overall more helpful to stop acting like a career in the military needs to become an all encompassing part of your lifestyle (including affects on appearance when off duty). Treat it more like a career and make it worth people's while instead of expecting to get a bunch of people who'll want to make it their entire life busting down our doors.


I would say its the opposite. We only started having these serious retention issues AFTER we started moving away from what made the military unique. The more it becomes just another job the less people shall stay as if it is just another job, the grass is significantly greener on the other side. Easy example being doing the same job I was doing in the military, working less hours civvy side, dealing with a whole lot less BS, I was making about double as a apprentice what the military was paying me. Where the military can beat that out is the potentially cool stuff it can offer, as well as the potential social aspects it can create if it so chooses.


----------



## Navy_Pete (1 Sep 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Where the military can beat that out is the potentially cool stuff it can offer, as well as the potential social aspects it can create if it so chooses.


That's why I joined; sailing around the world sounded awesome (and it can be). What isn't awesome is trying to do it with a fraction of the crew, in ships that are below normal safety standards, under unachievable schedules with insane expectations. We recruit some very smart people and give them a lot of training, and that sense of camaraderie keeps a lot of people around long after they get to the point where they realize things are foxed.

Doing cool things with an element of risk is fun and can be an adventure; taking on a lot of risk to do a dog and pony show because some big giant head made a commitment is not. We are deploying ships with defects that 10 years ago would have been a question mark for doing some kind of routine trials and then just hoping for the best. When people see that hope is the primary COA it's no real surprise that we are losing people left and right.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Sep 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> It is not that white males are their primary recruitment group, it is rural males. Most rural males in this country just happen to be white and conservative in mannerisms. This makes sense since, A) immigrants tend not to be moving into rural areas and B) If you are rural you tend to have to be self sufficient, which tends to align more with more conservative policies and actions than what most urbanites do.



There are hundreds of thousands of people with South Asian heritage in BC, many of them living in rural areas from the Fraser Valley, to Kelowna, to Prince George (every sawmill has a bunch of Sikh employees) etc.

The Punjabi/Sikh culture has a long tradition of gallant military service, about which they are rightly very proud.

I have had (a very few) soldiers from South Asian backgrounds serving in my rifle companies and they have always been excellent troops.

Let's face it, we just suck at attracting and retaining brown people.









						South Asian Canadians in British Columbia - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## rmc_wannabe (1 Sep 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Doing cool things with an element of risk is fun and can be an adventure; taking on a lot of risk to do a dog and pony show because some big giant head made a commitment is not. We are deploying ships with defects that 10 years ago would have been a question mark for doing some kind of routine trials and then just hoping for the best. When people see that hope is the primary COA it's no real surprise that we are losing people left and right.


I have seen this shift in the Army post-Afghan. 

Maple Resolve was supposed to "keep the troops engaged" after 13 years of intense R2HR training and deployments. When we then kicked off again with REASSURANCE, IMPACT, and UNIFER; It became a burden. In addition to the logistical and operational planning involved, it's now been impacting APS cycles, in such that a Bde HQ will get confirmed, half the staff will be posted out, and by September... new staff to learn their jobs.

No one joins the Army to LARP in Wainwright for 6 months out of the year. Worse still spending 6 months LARPing in Wainwright, only to spend 6 months LARPing in Latvia afterwards.

I'm not saying we need to be in an active shooting war to keep the troops engaged, but we need to know when to ease off the throttle and give people room to breath.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Sep 2022)

Back to dress regs, working down at the shipyards I noticed a sign, that said: "It's your responsibility to be clean shaven if you are required to wear protective masks" with an illustration of the masks/helmets involved. Most businesses are quite strict on some elements of a dress code, mostly in regards to PPE and hair safety. But also in regards to gang affiliations, vulgar slogans, memes or political stuff. So the CAF is not exactly an outlier on the issue.


----------



## mariomike (1 Sep 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Most businesses are quite strict on some elements of a dress code,



Like Air Canada Flight Attendants in regards to personal grooming standards.



> adhere to _impeccable_ personal grooming standards.



AC's italics, not mine.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Sep 2022)

btrudy said:


> I really don't get why there's such resistance to the notion of changing the way the military does things in light of changing societal norms. The the way you've been doing things forever isn't working as well because of a mis-match between how the people you're recruiting expect to be treated, the only real option is to change the way you're doing things. Because you're not going to change how the people you're recruiting expect to be treated: we don't have the option of recruiting from other places or using a time machine to recruit from eras where people would have responded better to it.
> 
> The military can't change society. We need to work with the Canadian populace that we've got. And if we continue to refuse to adapt to what society expects from employers, all we'll do is continue to exacerbate our ongoing recruitment and retention crisis.


Note my highlighted area. Sometimes societal "norms" do not fit with military life. 

Off the top of my head - the suborning of an  individual's wants in order to further the group. 
Most of your post I agree with.


----------



## Navy_Pete (1 Sep 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Back to dress regs, working down at the shipyards I noticed a sign, that said: "It's your responsibility to be clean shaven if you are required to wear protective masks" with an illustration of the masks/helmets involved. Most businesses are quite strict on some elements of a dress code, mostly in regards to PPE and hair safety. But also in regards to gang affiliations, vulgar slogans, memes or political stuff. So the CAF is not exactly an outlier on the issue.


Being clean shaven is a pretty much universally accepted safety requirement for PPE and SCBAs that require a seal. When we asked Navies and fire departments in countries with large Sihk populations what they do, they simply tell people to shave. Most countries also don't accept 'Viking' as a religion for an exception either, so no idea wtf we are doing (particularly as there are no religious exemptions for fire fighting SCBA in CAF policy).

Not sure if I shared this previously, but there was this recent story in CBC about this Sikh gentleman who is a volunteer FF is PEI that explains it better than I can, but generally religions allow for all kinds of exceptions for things like safety. And given that it's more than just a bit of facial hair to him, I think making the sacrifice to help people is pretty commendable.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-stratford-newcomer-firefighter-1.6426225


----------



## KevinB (1 Sep 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Being clean shaven is a pretty much universally accepted safety requirement for PPE and SCBAs that require a seal. When we asked Navies and fire departments in countries with large Sihk populations what they do, they simply tell people to shave. Most countries also don't accept 'Viking' as a religion for an exception either, so no idea wtf we are doing (particularly as there are no religious exemptions for fire fighting SCBA in CAF policy).
> 
> Not sure if I shared this previously, but there was this recent story in CBC about this Sikh gentleman who is a volunteer FF is PEI that explains it better than I can, but generally religions allow for all kinds of exceptions for things like safety. And given that it's more than just a bit of facial hair to him, I think making the sacrifice to help people is pretty commendable.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-stratford-newcomer-firefighter-1.6426225


Simple fix - Give the ‘Vikings’ a sword, shield and long boat - point them at Russia and say come back with your shield or on it…


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Sep 2022)

Or Ireland.


----------



## Navy_Pete (1 Sep 2022)

KevinB said:


> Simple fix - Give the ‘Vikings’ a sword, shield and long boat - point them at Russia and say come back with your shield or on it…


This was one of those I couldn't actually believe the person was serious. Vikings is a fun show, and interesting set of myths, but it's not actually a specific mono culture or a recognized religion. 

They also freely raped, pillaged, murdered and enslaved their enemies, so hardly fits with CAF ethos.

Someone claiming Jedi would actually make more sense, as that's at least well defined. It would still be BS, but still.

I'd be more inclinded to stick them on a wooden sailboat as well and wish them the best of luck against Russia (or whoever). Don't do it halfassed, get out the oars!


----------



## FSTO (1 Sep 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> They also freely raped, pillaged, murdered and enslaved their enemies, so hardly fits with CAF ethos.


Sounds like every established religion's (except maybe the Buddists?) past behaviour to me.


----------



## QV (1 Sep 2022)

FSTO said:


> Sounds like every established religion's (except maybe the Buddists?) past behaviour to me.


Have we collectively apologized yet for the Viking raids? I'm sure it's coming.


----------



## tomydoom (1 Sep 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Or Ireland.


Please no, I don’t want to find him in my local.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Sep 2022)

Having seen the efforts my two daughters go to for dressing up to be part of a group/look, particularly the gothy/grungy look, there is nothing causal about it and there is much detailing going on that creates signals to the group about status, confidence, knowledge that us mere mortal men would not understand. So what I will say is that most of the alternate look is the current human version of being a male peacock.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Sep 2022)

Apparently someone intends to show up with purple hair on 6 Sep. I'm betting on who it is, but I'll wait until it happens and report back.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Sep 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> This was one of those I couldn't actually believe the person was serious. Vikings is a fun show, and interesting set of myths, but it's not actually a specific mono culture or a recognized religion.
> 
> They also freely raped, pillaged, murdered and enslaved their enemies, so hardly fits with CAF ethos.
> 
> ...


Jedi - yes.

👍🏻👍🏻


----------



## kev994 (1 Sep 2022)

ModlrMike said:


> Apparently someone intends to show up with purple hair on 6 Sep. I'm betting on who it is, but I'll wait until it happens and report back.


Who cares as long as they do their job?


----------



## Remius (1 Sep 2022)

I fully expect all sorts of stuff sept 6th.  I will likely be sporting a goatee.


----------



## RangerRay (1 Sep 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> This was one of those I couldn't actually believe the person was serious. Vikings is a fun show, and interesting set of myths, but it's not actually a specific mono culture or a recognized religion.
> 
> They also freely raped, pillaged, murdered and enslaved their enemies, so hardly fits with CAF ethos.
> 
> ...


If they are telling you their religion is “Viking” they’re full of shite. Norse/Germanic Paganism might be more accurate, but I don’t know how well it survived after not being practised for 1000 years.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Sep 2022)

Remius said:


> I fully expect all sorts of stuff sept 6th.  I will likely be sporting a goatee.



While I've appreciated the whole beard thing...I really only do it because I was sick of shaving daily after 3 decades of it.

I always did a "Holiday goatee"...less itchy and all that.


----------



## Remius (1 Sep 2022)

RangerRay said:


> If they are telling you their religion is “Viking” they’re full of shite. Norse/Germanic Paganism might be more accurate, but I don’t know how well it survived after not being practised for 1000 years.


It hasn’t.  The stuff practiced today, much like Wiccan and Neo Druidism is all mostly made up and inspired by what they “think” pre Christian religions did and practiced.  Neo Paganism is a relatively new set of belief systems that don’t have much history to really link them to anything thought of as “ancient”.


----------



## btrudy (1 Sep 2022)

Remius said:


> It hasn’t.  The stuff practiced today, much like Wiccan and Neo Druidism is all mostly made up and inspired by what they “think” pre Christian religions did and practiced.  Neo Paganism is a relatively new set of belief systems that don’t have much history to really link them to anything thought of as “ancient”.



Hardly like we can go around tossing out some religious beliefs because they're "all mostly made up" without realistically tossing them all out. 

New belief systems are not more or less valid than ancient ones.


----------



## Remius (1 Sep 2022)

btrudy said:


> Hardly like we can go around tossing out some religious beliefs because they're "all mostly made up" without realistically tossing them all out.
> 
> New belief systems are not more or less valid than ancient ones.


I’m fine with tossing them all out. 

But, new beliefs that pretend to be something they can’t possibly be are in my mind ridiculous.  There are recognized religions and there are…other stuff.  Jedis, Scientologists and neo Vikings are in that bag of other stuff as far as I’m concerned.


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Sep 2022)

kev994 said:


> Who cares as long as they do their job?


I agree, but in this case, he doesn't do his job. At least not particularly well.


----------



## SupersonicMax (2 Sep 2022)

ModlrMike said:


> I agree, but in this case, he doesn't do his job. At least not particularly well.


So that’s not an appearance issue.


----------



## Lumber (2 Sep 2022)

Remius said:


> I’m fine with tossing them all out.
> 
> But, new beliefs that pretend to be something they can’t possibly be are in my mind ridiculous.  There are recognized religions and there are…other stuff.  Jedis, Scientologists and neo Vikings are in that bag of other stuff as far as I’m concerned.


I'm also fine with tossing them all out.

If: 
1. We are agreeing that all religion are made up; and
2. We are going to tolerate people's religious beliefs; then
3. Someone could make up a completely new religion tomorrow, and as long as they convincingly express that it's tenets are their genuine spiritual belief, then who are we to deny them the right to practice it?

It would seem to be very hypocritical to say "I believe whole basis for wearing turbans is total bull s**, but they've been doing it for a long time, so they can do it. However, Norse paganism in general, and your belief in its tenants in particular, are both new things, so you can't practice your belief and have a pony tail, despite the fact that I also think it's just a bunch of bull s**."


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Sep 2022)

Let them worship what they want as long as it doesn’t interfere with operational effectiveness  and training. 

Does it really matter if eight members of an infantry section worship 4 different gods? Or none at all?  As long as they aren’t sacrificing living things ….


----------



## Remius (2 Sep 2022)

Lumber said:


> I'm also fine with tossing them all out.
> 
> If:
> 1. We are agreeing that all religion are made up; and
> ...


All fine points. 

Especially number 3.  Genuine.  Most people suddenly finding some obscure religion out of convenience to either avoid something or gain advantage. 

I’m sure now that beards can be grown to any length that our number of declared Thorists will drop significantly.  Or that the number of anti vaxxers who all of a sudden found a religion that gives them an exemption will stop finding whatever new god they had somehow turned to with mandates lifted Etc etc. 

I have no issues with legit beliefs or faith.  It’s the people that suddenly found whatever god or gods so they can do whatever superficial thing they wanted to do because they didn’t like the rules. 

This new dress reg at least removes that part of the equation and at least won’t make liars out of troops.


----------



## Navy_Pete (2 Sep 2022)

Lumber said:


> I'm also fine with tossing them all out.
> 
> If:
> 1. We are agreeing that all religion are made up; and
> ...


I don't really care what they believe and they can practice however they want, my objection was the RCN creating a religious exemption for wearing a beard with SCBA for firefighting that is specifally against the higher order CAF policy (run by ADM(IE).)

They want to give someone a religious exemption for wearing a beard, fill their boots, they just can't ignore CAF safety regulations and issue orders that are counter to them. There are very good reasons, proven by practical field studies that demonstrate the requirement to be clean shaven with an SCBA, so if they want to do that, basically they are taking that person off duty watches and sticking them in a corner during emergencies.


----------



## btrudy (2 Sep 2022)

Lumber said:


> I'm also fine with tossing them all out.
> 
> If:
> 1. We are agreeing that all religion are made up; and
> ...


And this is why I like the new dress instructions, as it largely bypasses the issue (a rather minor issue all things considered of course) of people adopting religions on order to wear their hair the way they want by simply allowing everything that any religious accommodation might be granted for for everyone.


No need to bother with validating sincerity of beliefs and deal with accommodations if it's just allowed outright.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Sep 2022)

kev994 said:


> Who cares as long as they do their job?



Next thing you know we'll be saying civilian attire without the "appropriate" adjective.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Sep 2022)

btrudy said:


> And this is why I like the new dress instructions, as it largely bypasses the issue (a rather minor issue all things considered of course) of people adopting religions on order to wear their hair the way they want by simply allowing everything that any religious accommodation might be granted for for everyone.
> 
> 
> No need to bother with validating sincerity of beliefs and deal with accommodations if it's just allowed outright.



We really need more people in the CAF who are willing to lie about religious beliefs in order to dress how they want.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (2 Sep 2022)

Got my hair cut today. As per usual. Lots of folks were in line at the CANEX on base as well. 

I suspect there will be a bang and fizzle situation here like BEARDFORGEN and WEEDFORGEN.


----------



## kev994 (2 Sep 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Got my hair cut today. As per usual. Lots of folks were in line at the CANEX on base as well.
> 
> I suspect there will be a bang and fizzle situation here like BEARDFORGEN and WEEDFORGEN.


I assume several units threatened an inspection for this afternoon to get one last rip out of the old instructions lest someone try to get a head start.


----------



## KevinB (2 Sep 2022)

kev994 said:


> I assume several units threatened an inspection for this afternoon to get one last rip out of the old instructions lest someone try to get a head start.


Current standard is still the current standard…


----------



## rmc_wannabe (2 Sep 2022)

kev994 said:


> I assume several units threatened an inspection for this afternoon to get one last rip out of the old instructions lest someone try to get a head start.


Haven't seen or heard a peep from any units conducting a "fuck you" parade for their troops this week. 

I imagine most were warned off that any "shenanigans" would be dealt with much higher up the food chain, so maybe it's just people carrying on as per usual? 🤔


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Sep 2022)

kev994 said:


> I assume several units threatened an inspection for this afternoon to get one last rip out of the old instructions lest someone try to get a head start.



Shhhh... don't give anyone bad ideas


----------



## Lumber (2 Sep 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I don't really care what they believe and they can practice however they want, my objection was the RCN creating a religious exemption for wearing a beard with SCBA for firefighting that is specifally against the higher order CAF policy (run by ADM(IE).)
> 
> They want to give someone a religious exemption for wearing a beard, fill their boots, they just can't ignore CAF safety regulations and issue orders that are counter to them. There are very good reasons, proven by practical field studies that demonstrate the requirement to be clean shaven with an SCBA, so if they want to do that, basically they are taking that person off duty watches and sticking them in a corner during emergencies.


Was that the issue? If so, then I 100% agree with you. Operational imperative > Safety > Personal Preference/Religious Requirements


----------



## Navy_Pete (2 Sep 2022)

Lumber said:


> Was that the issue? If so, then I 100% agree with you. Operational imperative > Safety > Personal Preference/Religious Requirements


Yep, and the RCN kicked out a NAVORD that allows a religious exemption for beards, so causing confusion.

Think it was an honest mistake, with the RCN folks not aware of the CAF requirement, but was 5 years ago and still hasn't been fixed, so it's hard to explain to the fleet that there is a safety issue preventing beards for the new dress regs when that NAVORD is on the street.

It's a clear case of a safety/operational restriction in the dress regs that COs can direct people to shave, but they aren't going to do it if they don't know about it, and they just ignore the tech side of things when there is clear direction from the RCN that says the opposite.


----------



## Lumber (2 Sep 2022)

You guys should make September 6th an annual sort of CAF "Halloween" where we celebrate the release of HAIRFORGEN by dressing/wearing the most ridiculously but within regulations we can. Circle beard, temporary face tattoo, multiple earrings, multi-colured hair, 80s sunglasses, and men wearing skirt and pumps. Make it a thing and have fun with it!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (2 Sep 2022)

Heck! That's not even new. My days, mid 70's to early 2000, I went to sea - the beard came off.

My wife, for some reason, liked when I went to sea.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Sep 2022)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Heck! That's not even new. My days, mid 70's to early 2000, I went to sea - the beard came off.
> 
> My wife, for some reason, liked when I went to sea.


When the CCG switched to the 28 cycle Layday system, several guys who used to work 2 week on , 2 week off, found their wives quite miffed that they were still hanging around the house on the 3rd week.


----------



## mariomike (2 Sep 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> When the CCG switched to the 28 cycle Layday system, several guys who used to work 2 week on , 2 week off, found their wives quite miffed that they were still hanging around the house on the 3rd week.



I had to look "Layday" up. That's an interesting schedule.


----------



## Kilted (2 Sep 2022)

I'm pretty sure that Sept 6th is basically the CAF's Judgement Day (in the James Cameron type of way, not the Biblical way).


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Sep 2022)

Kilted said:


> I'm pretty sure that Sept 6th is basically the CAF's Judgement Day (in the James Cameron type of way, not the Biblical way).


Honestly I don't think there will be much change. There may be a few that colour their hair on the evening of 5 Sep as a lark - there are always a few in every unit. After the initial shock things will settle down. I expect most will dress the same as pre 6 September.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Sep 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Haven't seen or heard a peep from any units conducting a "fuck you" parade for their troops this week.
> 
> I imagine most were warned off that any "shenanigans" would be dealt with much higher up the food chain, so maybe it's just people carrying on as per usual? 🤔



I’m not really convinced yet that Snr GOFOs are really “sorting out” Jnr GOFO/Col-Capt rank subs.   Maybe it happens…


----------



## SupersonicMax (2 Sep 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I’m not really convinced yet that Snr GOFOs are really “sorting out” Jnr GOFO/Col-Capt rank subs.   Maybe it happens…


I can guarantee you it happens.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (2 Sep 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I’m not really convinced yet that Snr GOFOs are really “sorting out” Jnr GOFO/Col-Capt rank subs.   Maybe it happens…


----------



## kev994 (2 Sep 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> I can guarantee you it happens.


Someone must have ran into MGen Drouin…


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Sep 2022)

__
		https://www.tiktok.com/video/7138784072435830022

Amazing!


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Sep 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> __
> https://www.tiktok.com/video/7138784072435830022
> 
> Amazing!


See what beards and long hair cause?


----------



## Kilted (2 Sep 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> __
> https://www.tiktok.com/video/7138784072435830022
> 
> Amazing!


Someone is about to be charged.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Sep 2022)

Kilted said:


> Someone is about to be charged.


Naaaaahhhhhhh, 2022, they'll receive a ....... stern talking to 😄

All those likes!

The best part is the tiktok caption at the bottom "these actions are performed by professionals"  🤣


----------



## kev994 (2 Sep 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> See what beards and long hair cause?


Shoulda had that pre- free-for-all Friday afternoon hair inspection, would have avoided this embarrassment.


----------



## Weinie (2 Sep 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> __
> https://www.tiktok.com/video/7138784072435830022
> 
> Amazing!


Did u see how much spray when he opened the can? Alcohol abuse.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Sep 2022)

Weinie said:


> Did u see how much spray when he opened the can? Alcohol abuse.


He'll get charged for having a shitty exit that shook the beer up.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Sep 2022)

Kilted said:


> Someone is about to be charged.



Hopefully…


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Sep 2022)

Kilted said:


> Someone is about to be charged.


yup.


----------



## North Star (3 Sep 2022)

Two counts: one for the alcohol, another for unauthorized release of information to the Chinese Communist Party through the use of Tik Tok during a training activity.


----------



## KevinB (3 Sep 2022)

North Star said:


> Two counts: one for the alcohol, another for unauthorized release of information to the Chinese Communist Party through the use of Tik Tok during a training activity.


I’d toss in another: Negligent Performance of Duties for parachuting with a hand occupied by a non authorized equipment item.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Sep 2022)

KevinB said:


> I’d toss in another: Negligent Performance of Duties for parachuting with a hand occupied by a non authorized equipment item.


Pfffft, slips do nothing anyways.


----------



## Kilted (3 Sep 2022)

Should we start guessing: RCR? PPCLI? QOR?

Also, are we sure that this is real and that someone didn't green screen it?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (3 Sep 2022)

North Star said:


> Two counts: one for the alcohol, another for unauthorized release of information to the Chinese Communist Party through the use of Tik Tok during a training activity.


Might want to talk to the numerous official CAF TikTok accounts managed by ADM(PA).

Guy did something stupid, but in the process, that's 2 and a half million free advertising views for the CAF....


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Sep 2022)

Kilted said:


> Should we start guessing: RCR? PPCLI? QOR?
> 
> Also, are we sure that this is real and that someone didn't green screen it?


You can bet your kilt the CWO net is on fire right now.


----------



## Kilted (3 Sep 2022)

I'm surprised that the media hasn't picked it up yet.


----------



## Quirky (3 Sep 2022)

With all the bad press lately from the GOFO sexual front, this isn't all that bad really. Pretty accurate state of what the CAF is in right now. Bored troops do shit like this.


----------



## Weinie (3 Sep 2022)

Quirky said:


> With all the bad press lately from the GOFO sexual front, this isn't all that bad really. Pretty accurate state of what the CAF is in right now. Bored troops do shit like this.


As a former PAO, my first response is "Meh." My second response is "Meh." We have much bigger problems that we have to tackle. Amusing, but does not address any of our institutional shortcomings, but does address what some think is the current institutional state. I know, preaching to the choir


----------



## Furniture (3 Sep 2022)

btrudy said:


> Having opinions that aren't shared by most people here is hardly the same thing as trolling. If you disagree with me, that's fine. I'm Reg Force Navy, no particular desire to share any more than that; I hardly see how it reasonably affects what I'm saying anyways.


RCN "leadership" particularly WRT NWO subbies isn't indicative of how the CAF as a whole operates. In my near 22 years I can count on my fingers how many times I have been yelled at, and I can assure you that pretty much every time (except once on ship) it was well deserved.


----------



## FSTO (3 Sep 2022)

Furniture said:


> RCN "leadership" particularly WRT NWO subbies isn't indicative of how the CAF as a whole operates. In my near 22 years I can count on my fingers how many times I have been yelled at, and I can assure you that pretty much every time (except once on ship) it was well deserved.


I got yelled at once that I can remember. CO of ALG OP Apollo. I was OOW and myself my second and the ORO were all grouped around the chart table discussing something I cannot remember. There was nobody (except for the lookouts) with eyes forward. To me it felt like seconds we were around the table, to Paulson it was likely seconds too long as he slammed his fist on the table and yelled "OOW keep your goddamn head forward!" We were in open ocean but the message was clear, safety of the ship and her company. Never forgot and the matter was closed. I also noticed that he used my position and not my name, so it wasn't personal. Which it could sometimes with him if you fubard more than once.


----------



## Furniture (3 Sep 2022)

FSTO said:


> I got yelled at once that I can remember. CO of ALG OP Apollo. I was OOW and myself my second and the ORO were all grouped around the chart table discussing something I cannot remember. There was nobody (except for the lookouts) with eyes forward. To me it felt like seconds we were around the table, to Paulson it was likely seconds too long as he slammed his fist on the table and yelled "OOW keep your goddamn head forward!" We were in open ocean but the message was clear, safety of the ship and her company. Never forgot and the matter was closed. I also noticed that he used my position and not my name, so it wasn't personal. Which it could sometimes with him if you fubard more than once.


I saw COs that treated the subbies with a firm but respectful hand, and ones that seemed to enjoy making them squirm/cry. I suspect there are more of the former than the latter, but the latter really stand out. 

Back to dress, I wonder how many of the fecal-pumps we have will now use dress as a way to claim they are being harassed? eg. S1 Bloggins can't do their job, so they dye their hair neon green, then pretend that the green hair is the reason they are receiving poor feedback.  

I'm guessing it will be a small number, but I suspect we will all meet one in the next year or so.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Sep 2022)

Kilted said:


> Someone is about to be charged.


I am thinking his GAF is at 0 and decided it was worth getting charged for.


----------



## CICOPS (3 Sep 2022)

Apparently this guy is retired Sept 1. He was a Vandoo.


----------



## North Star (3 Sep 2022)

Oh, don't worry...I'd slam all the PAOs too.


rmc_wannabe said:


> Might want to talk to the numerous official CAF TikTok accounts managed by ADM(PA).
> 
> Guy did something stupid, but in the process, that's 2 and a half million free advertising views for the CAF....


----------



## Booter (3 Sep 2022)

CICOPS said:


> Apparently this guy is retired Sept 1. He was a Vandoo.


Should have guessed by the state of his hair and beard.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Sep 2022)

Booter said:


> Should have guessed by the state of his hair and beard.


He might be the infamous water buffalo fecal depositer!


----------



## Grimey (3 Sep 2022)

FSTO said:


> I got yelled at once that I can remember. CO of ALG OP Apollo. I was OOW and myself my second and the ORO were all grouped around the chart table discussing something I cannot remember. There was nobody (except for the lookouts) with eyes forward. To me it felt like seconds we were around the table, to Paulson it was likely seconds too long as he slammed his fist on the table and yelled "OOW keep your goddamn head forward!" We were in open ocean but the message was clear, safety of the ship and her company. Never forgot and the matter was closed. I also noticed that he used my position and not my name, so it wasn't personal. Which it could sometimes with him if you fubard more than once.


Remember we had a MISSILEX off of San Diego just prior to Apollo?  I remember being in the wardroom for the entry force protection brief (and if I was there, so were you).  Anyway, the LCdr giving the brief missed some major points.  Gary wasn’t happy about it and made some fairly pointed observations before nixing the brief.  Point being, he‘d been deployed in the GOO twice before and new his stuff.  It was a shot across the bows as if to say “this is for real, kids”.


----------



## Kilted (3 Sep 2022)

CICOPS said:


> Apparently this guy is retired Sept 1. He was a Vandoo.


But they can still charge him because the offence occurred during his service.


----------



## dangerboy (3 Sep 2022)

Kilted said:


> But they can still charge him because the offence occurred during his service.


Only if the service infraction had occurred within 6 months: QR&O: Volume II - Chapter 121 Referral of Charges and Post-Charge Procedure - Canada.ca

121.05 – LIMITATION PERIOD​Section 163.4 of the _National Defence Act_ provides:

“163.4 A summary hearing in respect of a charge alleging the commission of a service infraction may not be conducted unless it commences within six months after the day on which the service infraction is alleged to have been committed.”


----------



## FSTO (3 Sep 2022)

Grimey said:


> Remember we had a MISSILEX off of San Diego just prior to Apollo?  I remember being in the wardroom for the entry force protection brief (and if I was there, so were you).  Anyway, the LCdr giving the brief missed some major points.  Gary wasn’t happy about it and made some fairly pointed observations before nixing the brief.  Point being, he‘d been deployed in the GOO twice before and new his stuff.  It was a shot across the bows as if to say “this is for real, kids”.


I remember that one. Yep it was Barnyard who was giving the brief. 
Then there was a departure brief that the buffer and I gave that was IAW the seamanship manual. We got half way through and Gary stops it and said “WTF?” When I said ST told us to this way and not the way we’ve done before, he glared at CST(P) and said “not any more!”


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Sep 2022)

dangerboy said:


> Only if the service infraction had occurred within 6 months: QR&O: Volume II - Chapter 121 Referral of Charges and Post-Charge Procedure - Canada.ca
> 
> 121.05 – LIMITATION PERIOD​Section 163.4 of the _National Defence Act_ provides:
> 
> “163.4 A summary hearing in respect of a charge alleging the commission of a service infraction may not be conducted unless it commences within six months after the day on which the service infraction is alleged to have been committed.”



Infraction?  I’d go offences for that little video.   Great evidence to boot.


----------



## Kat Stevens (3 Sep 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Infraction?  I’d go offences for that little video.   Great evidence to boot.


Or, we could just say "haha, good one, nice final fuck you to the army. Thanks for your service and enjoy the rest of your life". All the egregious bullshit we've seen from the adult supervision over the past few years and THIS is what gets the hounds baying?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Sep 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Or, we could just say "haha, good one, nice final fuck you to the army. Thanks for your service and enjoy the rest of your life". All the egregious bullshit we've seen from the adult supervision over the past few years and THIS is what gets the hounds baying?



Yup.  Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.  But, the current, weak-spined CAF will probably do this…


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Sep 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Or, we could just say "haha, good one, nice final fuck you to the army. Thanks for your service and enjoy the rest of your life". All the egregious bullshit we've seen from the adult supervision over the past few years and THIS is what gets the hounds baying?


Couldn't agree more @Kat Stevens 

As my father used to say, "LIG Pal!"


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Sep 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Or, we could just say "haha, good one, nice final fuck you to the army. Thanks for your service and enjoy the rest of your life". All the egregious bullshit we've seen from the adult supervision over the past few years and THIS is what gets the hounds baying?


Static-line dropped a few folks of notably higher rank than this solider and there was a flask with some whisky and less whisky when they went up for the next drop.  Though it wouldn’t surprise me if they did exactly the opposite of what @Kat Stevens suggests…because: ‘priorities’


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Sep 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Static-line dropped a few folks of notably higher rank than this solider and there was a flask with some whisky and less whisky when they went up for the next drop.  Though it wouldn’t surprise me if they did exactly the opposite of what @Kat Stevens suggests…because: ‘priorities’



I bet they didn’t video it and post it.  Way back in my early days in the mob, one of my Jnr NCOs educated me on the “be smart about being stupid” rule.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Sep 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I bet they didn’t video it and post it.  Way back in my early days in the mob, one of my Jnr NCOs educated me on the “be smart about being stupid” rule.


No, they didn’t, but they were exercising privilege for sure.  I think young trooper’s vid was definitely an F U…

ps. When the flask bubba came up for the second jump, I told him it was the last one he’d be doing jumping from my helo.  He tried for a microsecond to half-stripe me, which got him a silent 30-sec long “ya gonna go there?” look.  He must have had a good think about it, because he didn’t join in for subsequent jumps.  I would have had no issue having a chat with my CO and I know he wouldn’t have been shy to have a 1:1 with the Bde Comd if dude had gone off on me.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Sep 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> No, they didn’t, but they were exercising privilege for sure.  I think young trooper’s vid was definitely an F U…
> 
> ps. When the flask bubba came up for the second jump, I told him it was the last one he’d be doing jumping from my helo.  He tried for a microsecond to half-stripe me, which got him a silent 30-sec long “ya gonna go there?” look.  He must have had a good think about it, because he didn’t join in for subsequent jumps.  I would have had no issue having a chat with my CO and I know he wouldn’t have been shy to have a 1:1 with the Bde Comd if dude had gone off on me.


It would have went badly for the dude if he went all “rock, paper, aircraft captain” with you…


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Sep 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> It would have went badly for the dude if he went all “rock, paper, aircraft captain” with you…


Would definitely have screwed himself with the B-GA-100/FP-001 signed by, you know…the MND.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Sep 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Would definitely have screwed himself with the B-GA-100/FP-001 signed by, you know…the MND.


Not to mention the NDA, passed by Parliament…


----------



## SupersonicMax (4 Sep 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Would definitely have screwed himself with the B-GA-100/FP-001 signed by, you know…the MND.


Minor correction but the B-GA-100 is signed by the Comd RCAF under the authority of the CDS.


----------



## Kat Stevens (4 Sep 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Minor correction but the B-GA-100 is signed by the Comd RCAF under the authority of the CDS.


----------



## Weinie (4 Sep 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Minor correction but the B-GA-100 is signed by the Comd RCAF under the authority of the CDS.


And that's why you don't get invited to any parties.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Sep 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Minor correction but the B-GA-100 is signed by the Comd RCAF under the authority of the CDS.


Just saw that, I suppose the transition from CFP100 to B-GA-EIEIO wasn’t worth the MNDs time any more… 🤷🏻‍♂️


----------



## Eaglelord17 (4 Sep 2022)

Believe it or not, that video is the type of thing that would get Gen Z to join. The stuffy office worker vibe, where everyone and everything has to be uptight every second of the day isn’t.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Sep 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Believe it or not, that video is the type of thing that would get Gen Z to join. The stuffy office worker vibe, where everyone and everything has to be uptight every second of the day isn’t.


At risk of further derailing this thread... I think there's got to be a happy medium between stuffy office worker and chugging a beer during a high risk, safety sensitive activity after years of articles about alcohol causing misconduct incidents...

And if we really wanted Gen-Z, he would have brought a bong.


----------



## mariomike (4 Sep 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> I think young trooper’s vid was definitely an F U…



How "young trooper's" former employer handles, or doesn't handle, it is one thing.

Future hiring decisions of other employers may be another for him to consider...


----------



## Quirky (4 Sep 2022)

mariomike said:


> How "young trooper's" former employer handles, or doesn't handle, it is one thing.
> 
> Future hiring decisions of other employers may be another for him to consider...



You don’t need references to run a YouTube channel or collect welfare.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Sep 2022)

Quirky said:


> You don’t need references to run a YouTube channel or collect welfare.


…or work in the trades, etc. where this may actually support the spirit of team bonding with a new member…etc.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (4 Sep 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> …or work in the trades, etc. where this may actually support the spirit of team bonding with a new member…etc.


I work with a bunch of guys who have done WAAYYY worse than this.  This is pretty tame tbh.  

If Elon Musk can smoke weed with Joe Rogan and keep on trucking, this kid will be just fine!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (4 Sep 2022)

More input from the rank and file on Vandoo Beer Guy:


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Sep 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> More input from the rank and file on Vandoo Beer Guy:
> 
> 
> View attachment 73323


Top photo should include: “or on leave with ~$275,000/yr pay while alleged rape and sexual assault and harassment is investigated…”

NB: see LGen for a VAdm





						Pay rates for officers - Canada.ca
					

Pay rates for all officer ranks in the Canadian Armed Forces.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## mariomike (4 Sep 2022)

Quirky said:


> You don’t need references to run a YouTube channel or collect welfare.



The safety aspect was one thing. That's for experts to judge. 

But, going out of your way to publicly disrespect your employer, any employer, when you retire seems like a sad way to say good-bye. 
That's just my opinion.


----------



## Furniture (4 Sep 2022)

mariomike said:


> The safety aspect was one thing. That's for experts to judge.
> 
> But, going out of your way to publicly disrespect your employer, any employer, when you retire seems like a sad way to say good-bye.
> That's just my opinion.


It can also work to your advantage if your future employer feels the same way about the government... 

Lots of blue collar workers, and employers share similar sentiments to those expressed by the former Vandoo.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Sep 2022)

mariomike said:


> The safety aspect was one thing. That's for experts to judge.
> 
> But, going out of your way to publicly disrespect your employer, any employer, when you retire seems like a sad way to say good-bye.
> That's just my opinion.


You must have experienced things differently than the young but disillusioned trooper.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (4 Sep 2022)

Furniture said:


> It can also work to your advantage if your future employer feels the same way about the government...
> 
> Lots of blue collar workers, and employers share similar sentiments to those expressed by the former Vandoo.


My company I work for has a very strict no photos or cameras anywhere on the property.  This coinicides with their social media policy of no unauthorized posting about the company.

This alleviates a lot of issues for them and makes termination very easy should the need arise.


----------



## Kilted (4 Sep 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> My company I work for has a very strict no photos or cameras anywhere on the property.  This coinicides with their social media policy of no unauthorized posting about the company.
> 
> This alleviates a lot of issues for them and makes termination very easy should the need arise.


Is there one specific social media policy for the CAF, or is it done at lower levels?  I love constantly being told not to post anything about politics when we have two reserve officers currently serving as Members of Parliament.


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Sep 2022)

Kilted said:


> Is there one specific social media policy for the CAF, or is it done at lower levels?  I love constantly being told not to post anything about politics when we have two reserve officers currently serving as Members of Parliament.


IIRC I think there is one policy.

It’s how it’s applied locally or if it is at all is the question


----------



## mariomike (4 Sep 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> You must have experienced things differently than the young but disillusioned trooper.



Guess I was lucky.  🤷‍♂️



> I think young trooper’s vid was definitely an F U…



Maybe, for some, that goes along with handing in your papers these days...


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Sep 2022)

Kilted said:


> Is there one specific social media policy for the CAF, or is it done at lower levels?  I love constantly being told not to post anything about politics when we have two reserve officers currently serving as Members of Parliament.



Well, it's also important to conduct yourself in a way that you don't appear on the social media feeds of others too 

Viz:



			https://twitter.com/i/events/1447920927283548187


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Sep 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Well, it's also important to conduct yourself in a way that you don't appear on the social media feeds of others too
> 
> Viz:
> 
> ...


Are we really just leaving him on leave until he smashes CRA 60?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (5 Sep 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Are we really just leaving him on leave until he smashes CRA 60?


The answer is YES 😄

I need a gig where I get $400k to sit at home 😁


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Sep 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Are we really just leaving him on leave until he smashes CRA 60?



Not necessarily; he could max out his pension before CRA.  😝


----------



## Booter (5 Sep 2022)

Is there a succinct overview of Arts thing? I was under the impression that he couldn’t be charged because of issues with the evidence not that he was “exonerated”.

Those are two very different things


----------



## mariomike (5 Sep 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> My company I work for has a very strict no photos or cameras anywhere on the property.



The dept. I worked for was ok with snapshots on the property.

Not ok with souvenir selfies off the property.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (5 Sep 2022)

mariomike said:


> The dept. I worked for was ok with snapshots on the property.
> 
> Not ok with souvenir selfies off the property.


No photos on the property for me or any partaking in work related activities.  Any photo that is taken has to be approved by the company.

It's a good policy IMO.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Sep 2022)

mariomike said:


> The dept. I worked for was ok with snapshots on the property.


Did you have access to the internet and social media?


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Sep 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The answer is YES 😄
> 
> I need a gig where I get $400k to sit at home 😁


That's amazing.

All he needs now is a 3B medical release on the way out the door (don't forget to lean on the troop$ for a retirement gift)


----------



## Weinie (5 Sep 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The answer is YES 😄
> 
> I need a gig where I get $400k to sit at home 😁


I was forced to retire, but haven't (so far) been accused of anything remotely resembling this. Can I get my job back?


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Sep 2022)

Weinie said:


> I was forced to retire, but hadn't (so far) been accused of anything remotely resembling this. Can I get my job back?


NO - I couldn't either. Mind you my med cat had a lot to do with that.


----------



## Weinie (5 Sep 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> NO - I couldn't either. Mind you my med cat had a lot to do with that.


I have been made aware of a CRA  65.


----------



## FSTO (5 Sep 2022)

Weinie said:


> I have been made aware of a CRA  65.


That is what I’m on. The CAF is desperate for bodies. 🤪


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Sep 2022)

Me too! Plus, I met several similar folks in QC the other weekend.


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Sep 2022)

Weinie said:


> I have been made aware of a CRA  65.



Retirees to the rescue!









						Labour forces: Retirees to the rescue as the Great Resignation hits Canada
					

Canadians are living longer and healthier — why not work longer?




					www.timescolonist.com


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Sep 2022)

Weinie said:


> I have been made aware of a CRA  65.


Uugh…I’d have to do basic again… 😂


----------



## mariomike (5 Sep 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Retirees to the rescue!



Not this one.  



> Canadians are living longer and healthier — why not work longer?



I retired exactly ten years younger than my father did, after a World War and 45 years with the same employer. I think that's the direction to be heading.


----------



## FSTO (5 Sep 2022)

I’m freedom 65! But in reality it’ll be Freedom 63. This class B will be my last rodeo. And I mean it this time damnit!!!


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 Sep 2022)

My boss will let me knock off early the day of my funeral.


----------



## Kilted (6 Sep 2022)

The Ides of March have come.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Sep 2022)

Kilted said:


> The Ides of March have come.



This is like the morning of Y2K for some…when they realize  civilization did NOT collapse….😀


----------



## Kilted (6 Sep 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> This is like the morning of Y2K for some…when they realize  civilization did NOT collapse….😀


A little early for that, the Sun probably isn't even up in BC.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Sep 2022)

Kilted said:


> A little early for that, the Sun probably isn't even up in BC.



I can’t help it if they’re slow to get going in the morning.   I’ve been pretending to work for a few hours already!


----------



## FSTO (6 Sep 2022)

SM yesterday was rife with women talking about the colour of their nails for today. Followed by a few talking about their hair colour. There will also be a pile of guys with goatee's today.


----------



## Navy_Pete (6 Sep 2022)

FSTO said:


> SM yesterday was rife with women talking about the colour of their nails for today. Followed by a few talking about their hair colour. There will also be a pile of guys with goatee's today.


I had a weekend worth of stubble that I shaved off and left a goatee today just because I can, but still WFH anyway so who cares. Sure there will be lots of that, ,and simple things like bright nail colours etc.

Will be funny to see how many people wreck their hair trying to do the dye jobs though; going bright colours is a lot of steps to do properly and you can fry your hair to the point of it falling out. good reason it costs a lot at a professional.

Really much ado about nothing, but there are still people that lose their minds if you wear a beret as a Naval officer with a short sleeve (IAW the dress manual), so suspect it will take a while for some people to get over it, and others never will.

Still provides zero actual operational capability and arguably litterally putting lipstick on a broken pig. Just wish the BGHs would devote as much time and effort into ensuring we have the resources, time and capacity to make things actually work and keep them working as they do for the buttons, bows, morale badges and other BS they focus on.


----------



## FSTO (6 Sep 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Really much ado about nothing, but there are still people that lose their minds if you wear a beret as a Naval officer with a short sleeve (IAW the dress manual),









You'll never convince me that officer beret with ss shirt is a good look.


----------



## Navy_Pete (6 Sep 2022)

FSTO said:


> You'll never convince me that officer beret with ss shirt is a good look.



I don't really see any functional difference between an officer or NCM wearing a beret with DEUs, but with the new hat being cooler (but ugly and Soviet looking) probably just makes more sense to stick with that one in the summer anyway. It is an order of dress though, so the beret is a lot easier to travel with, even if it is a pain in the butt.


----------



## FSTO (6 Sep 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I don't really see any functional difference between an officer or NCM wearing a beret with DEUs, but with the new hat being cooler (but ugly and Soviet looking) probably just makes more sense to stick with that one in the summer anyway. It is an order of dress though, so the beret is a lot easier to travel with, even if it is a pain in the butt.


I actually really like the new hat, fits nice and no it is nowhere close to the size of the Soviets. I saw those close up back at the end of Cold War.


----------



## dangerboy (6 Sep 2022)

Is anyone else a bit disappointed that the only changes to the dress manual were in Chapter 2, Section 2 - Appearance?  This would have an ideal time for DHH to give the whole manual a more modern look. We could have gotten rid of the pencil drawings and had actual high-quality photographs.  Maybe it is just me but I think we can do better than this:


----------



## NavalMoose (6 Sep 2022)

dangerboy said:


> Is anyone else a bit disappointed that the only changes to the dress manual were in Chapter 2, Section 2 - Appearance?  This would have an ideal time for DHH to give the whole manual a more modern look. We could have gotten rid of the pencil drawings and had actual high-quality photographs.  Maybe it is just me but I think we can do better than this:
> 
> View attachment 73382


Are the drawings too hard to understand?


----------



## Navy_Pete (6 Sep 2022)

NavalMoose said:


> Are the drawings too hard to understand?


Based on the photos that got signed off by PA for the placement of the moustache pin, the drawings are really for the best, and at least aligned properly.

But as long as they are understandable, who cares? Accessing large files on the DWAN is already a pain.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Sep 2022)

Not that DND wouldn’t try scanning the black and white drawings in 24-bit colour depth at 1200dpi, and need a terraserver to distribute the images…


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Sep 2022)

dangerboy said:


> Is anyone else a bit disappointed that the only changes to the dress manual were in Chapter 2, Section 2 - Appearance?  This would have an ideal time for DHH to give the whole manual a more modern look. We could have gotten rid of the pencil drawings and had actual high-quality photographs.  Maybe it is just me but I think we can do better than this:
> 
> View attachment 73382



Dude, c'mon... they used their best two crayons


----------



## kev994 (6 Sep 2022)

dangerboy said:


> Is anyone else a bit disappointed that the only changes to the dress manual were in Chapter 2, Section 2 - Appearance?  This would have an ideal time for DHH to give the whole manual a more modern look. We could have gotten rid of the pencil drawings and had actual high-quality photographs.  Maybe it is just me but I think we can do better than this:
> 
> View attachment 73382


I heard a rumour that part of the delay was that the pictures proposed were kicked back to be replaced with drawings. Can’t remember where I heard it though. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Sep 2022)

@btrudy  did you end up dying your hair purple for today?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Sep 2022)

FSTO said:


> SM yesterday was rife with women talking about the colour of their nails for today. Followed by a few talking about their hair colour. There will also be a pile of guys with goatee's today.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Sep 2022)

Ok are there any real wingers reported?

Purple hair etc?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Sep 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Ok are there any real wingers reported?
> 
> Purple hair etc?



Thankfully, I am working out of a civie airport this week.   I get to avoid all “runway modelling” that might be happening at home plate.  😁


----------



## btrudy (6 Sep 2022)

I did. Wasn't the only one. Highest rank I've seen who went in on the coloured hair was a Cdr and an LCol for what it's worth.

Edit: make that 2 LCols and a Cdr now.


----------



## brihard (6 Sep 2022)

Anyone seen any social media collecting “best of” photos from today yet? I don’t really care about the little bits of hair colouring; I wanna see the angry Cpls who woke up today and chose violence.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Sep 2022)

btrudy said:


> I did. Wasn't the only one. Highest rank I've seen who went in on the coloured hair was a Cdr and an LCol for what it's worth.
> 
> Edit: make that 2 LCols and a Cdr now.


A man of your word, nice.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Sep 2022)

Coloured hair among senior officers has been going on for decades.  Occasionally also hair plugs.


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Sep 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Coloured hair among senior officers has been going on for decades.  Occasionally also hair plugs.


----------



## Haggis (7 Sep 2022)

brihard said:


> Anyone seen any social media collecting “best of” photos from today yet? I don’t really care about the little bits of hair colouring; I wanna see the angry Cpls who woke up today and chose violence.


Mocking a page like that could put the "People of Wal-Mart" page or our own "Fat Troops on the Street" thread to shame.


----------



## Weinie (7 Sep 2022)

Haggis said:


> Mocking a page like that could put the "People of Wal-Mart" page or our own "Fat Troops on the Street" thread to shame.


That is phucking hilarious


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Sep 2022)

brihard said:


> Anyone seen any social media collecting “best of” photos from today yet? I don’t really care about the little bits of hair colouring; I wanna see the angry Cpls who woke up today and chose violence.


Yeah those Corporals, I tell ya, with all the power they wield in the modern day forces,  they're a force to be reckoned with. You realize most of them now are of an age where they'd be completely on board with this foolishness, right?


----------



## Furniture (7 Sep 2022)

brihard said:


> Anyone seen any social media collecting “best of” photos from today yet? I don’t really care about the little bits of hair colouring; I wanna see the angry Cpls who woke up today and chose violence.


I am guessing a lot of people came to the conclusion that just because they _can_ dress like a clown, does not mean they _should_ dress like a clown...


----------



## lenaitch (7 Sep 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Will be funny to see how many people wreck their hair trying to do the dye jobs though; going bright colours is a lot of steps to do properly and you can fry your hair to the point of it falling out. good reason it costs a lot at a professional.


Years ago, a guy at one detachment left Friday with a fair bit of grey and showed up Monday with hair a bright shade of maroon.  He said it was the pool chemicals.


----------



## brihard (7 Sep 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Yeah those Corporals, I tell ya, with all the power they wield in the modern day forces,  they're a force to be reckoned with. You realize most of them now are of an age where they'd be completely on board with this foolishness, right?


I can’t even tell what it is you think you’re replying to. I made a lighthearted post about wanting to see some of the absurdity that absolutely will be happening in small bits here and there from members who want to take the new limits to extremes. Because it might be funny.


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Sep 2022)

brihard said:


> I can’t even tell what it is you think you’re replying to. I made a lighthearted post about wanting to see some of the absurdity that absolutely will be happening in small bits here and there from members who want to take the new limits to extremes. Because it might be funny.


And I thought you might get that I was doing the same. Seems we both learned something today.


----------



## brihard (7 Sep 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> And I thought you might get that I was doing the same. Seems we both learned something today.


Hah, sorry Kat, obviously something sailed past me there. I shouldn’t post pre-coffee.


----------



## Weinie (7 Sep 2022)

brihard said:


> Hah, sorry Kat, obviously something sailed past me there. I shouldn’t post pre-coffee.


NOBODY should do ANYTHING pre-coffee 

P.S.  Except sex. That is allowed. If your wife agrees.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Sep 2022)

Where I work, there was literally no change in dress and deportment between last week and this week…


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 Sep 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Where I work, there was literally no change in dress and deportment between last week and this week…



I haven't seen anything either.  Kind of disappointing to be honest lol


----------



## Navy_Pete (7 Sep 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I haven't seen anything either.  Kind of disappointing to be honest lol


It's nice to have some options if you want, but I think they drastically overestimated how much people care about this when they are being beaten like red-headed step children to keep the old fleet running at an unsustainable pace.


----------



## Quirky (7 Sep 2022)

Did you hear? The recruiting centers have line ups around the block and the release sections on base don't need to be staffed anymore. I'm glad the CAF addressed this all important problem of expressing individuality in an organization that teaches you to dress and behave the same.


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Sep 2022)

Here neither, we’re still a bunch of frag pit digging dirtbags. But then again most of have been out of the military for ten years or more 😀


----------



## Remius (7 Sep 2022)

Not much to report from my end other than someone starting a goatee.  Pretty much business as usual.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (7 Sep 2022)

Not a thing has changed at my training establishment. Not a soul has changed their appearance, despite a full debrief from all staff and the SCWO/Cmdt on the reg changes and that there would be no fuckery tolerated with staff enforcing arbitrary rules or hang ups.


----------



## Furniture (7 Sep 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Not a thing has changed at my training establishment. Not a soul has changed their appearance, despite a full debrief from all staff and the SCWO/Cmdt on the reg changes and that there would be no fuckery tolerated with staff enforcing arbitrary rules or hang ups.


I'm on day one of growing my perfect three day shadow... I saw a GO of some variety with a goatee on Tuesday. That's all I've noticed.


----------



## kev994 (7 Sep 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Where I work, there was literally no change in dress and deportment between last week and this week…


Ditto, though I heard there were some taking advantage of the idea they could wear nail polish, I’m not sure I knew they weren’t allowed to before.


----------



## Navy_Pete (7 Sep 2022)

And day 2 of the new regs and already have people showing up with beards that are supposed to be clean shaven for fireghting... FML.

Curious to see if this one will escalate right up the chain or if common sense will prevail and the RCN decides to actually just follow CAF safety orders.


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Sep 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> And day 2 of the new regs and already have people showing up with beards that are supposed to be clean shaven for fireghting... FML.
> 
> Curious to see if this one will escalate right up the chain or if common sense will prevail and the RCN decides to actually just follow CAF safety orders.


Not surprising in this day and age. A bunch of Ralph Wiggums "I'm special" kids.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (7 Sep 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Not surprising in this day and age. A bunch of Ralph Wiggums "I'm special" kids.


I wouldn't necessarily blame the kids. I would blame the folks who were supposed to provide clear and direct messaging IRT what the operational and safety requirements that trump the national policy. 

The CAF has been huge with the messaging that the Dress Regs were changing. Social media picked up on it too. If Bloggins doesn't know that "yeah... the directive as written states you need to be clean shaven because safety" well that's on the member's CoC for fucking up and not communicating that to their subordinates.

I'm sure you can fill a warehouse with the amount of Officers/WOs/SNCOs that didn't actually sit and the revised regs prior to them taking effect, let along explaining them to their troops properly.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Sep 2022)

Some of it is the troops too though.  There was a Cpl at a Sqn on my wing last Nov telling Avrs they didn’t have to get their hair cut for Nov 11th because the regs were changing.   Lol

They made a special visit to the SCWOs office.  🙂


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Sep 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I wouldn't necessarily blame the kids. I would blame the folks who were supposed to provide clear and direct messaging IRT what the operational and safety requirements that trump the national policy.
> 
> The CAF has been huge with the messaging that the Dress Regs were changing. Social media picked up on it too. If Bloggins doesn't know that "yeah... the directive as written states you need to be clean shaven because safety" well that's on the member's CoC for fucking up and not communicating that to their subordinates.
> 
> I'm sure you can fill a warehouse with the amount of Officers/WOs/SNCOs that didn't actually sit and the revised regs prior to them taking effect, let along explaining them to their troops properly.



You mean there was no podcast with complementary tik tok/ Instagram messaging?


----------



## Quirky (8 Sep 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Some of it is the troops too though.  There was a Cpl at a Sqn on my wing last Nov telling Avrs they didn’t have to get their hair cut for Nov 11th because the regs were changing.   Lol
> 
> They made a special visit to the SCWOs office.  🙂



Wow that’s crazy. Haven’t seen an Avr for a long-long time.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Sep 2022)

Quirky said:


> Wow that’s crazy. Haven’t seen an Avr for a long-long time.


We have lots…


----------



## ArmyRick (8 Sep 2022)

So, not sure this belongs here. As far as dress regs go, when do they design and issue the new jump smock with beer can shaped breast pockets?


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Sep 2022)

ArmyRick said:


> So, not sure this belongs here. As far as dress regs go, when do they design and issue the new jump smock with beer can shaped breast pockets?



As soon as they can sign a contract with the lead global 'Influencer'


----------



## Navy_Pete (8 Sep 2022)

I miss the days where you could do stupid things without it being remembered forever on the Interwebs.

If I was going to do this, I'd probably pick a better beer though.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I miss the days where you could do stupid things without it being remembered forever on the Interwebs.
> 
> If I was going to do this, I'd probably pick a better beer though.


Ditto and ditto.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Sep 2022)

Combat pants no longer require to bloused? Now they've went and crossed a line. I wonder if the Canex will have a fire sale on boot bands.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Sep 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Combat pants no longer require to bloused? Now they've went and crossed a line. I wonder if the Canex will have a fire sale on boot bands.


How will we keep the world safe for democracy?


----------



## Remius (20 Sep 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> How will we keep the world safe for democracy?


Use safe words.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Sep 2022)

Remius said:


> Use safe words.


I recommend adding Safe Space Ambassador in rainbow colours to ones signature block for starters.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Sep 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I recommend adding Safe Space Ambassador in rainbow colours to ones signature block for starters.



Ask and ye shall receive


----------



## FSTO (20 Sep 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Combat pants no longer require to bloused? Now they've went and crossed a line. I wonder if the Canex will have a fire sale on boot bands.


Bloused pants look dumb. 😉


----------



## Grimey (20 Sep 2022)

FSTO said:


> Bloused pants look dumb. 😉


But bloused coveralls are the dog's danglies.  I have a pic of you somewhere from 20 years ago of you looking the part .


----------



## FSTO (20 Sep 2022)

Grimey said:


> But bloused coveralls are the dog's danglies.  I have a pic of you somewhere from 20 years ago of you looking the part .


You are lying! I don’t recall that at all!!😉


----------



## Haggis (20 Sep 2022)

FSTO said:


> Bloused pants look dumb. 😉


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Sep 2022)

ArmyRick said:


> So, not sure this belongs here. As far as dress regs go, when do they design and issue the new jump smock with beer can shaped breast pockets?


64pat grenade pouch held two beer cans as I recall. The only redeeming feature of that webbing.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Sep 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Combat pants no longer require to bloused? Now they've went and crossed a line. I wonder if the Canex will have a fire sale on boot bands.



Can all those in the Sandbox, who got seriously jacked up for wearing their pants unbloused (at 50C), have an official apology from the Prime Minister?

Just wondering


----------



## rmc_wannabe (20 Sep 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Combat pants no longer require to bloused? Now they've went and crossed a line. I wonder if the Canex will have a fire sale on boot bands.


Where did you see this? Just for reference


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Sep 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Combat pants no longer require to bloused? Now they've went and crossed a line. I wonder if the Canex will have a fire sale on boot bands.



And I heard the Army is getting the peaked cap back for all. Big week.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Sep 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> And I heard the Army is getting the peaked cap back for all. Big week.



All... except for ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Sep 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Where did you see this? Just for reference


CADCC #26 CA Dress Instructions amendment (via email). I can fire it over to you tomorrow.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Sep 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> All... except for ...



The people who choose to wear skirts ?


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Sep 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> The people who choose to wear skirts ?



If you mean the Highland/ Scottish units that represent a large proportion of the RCIC, then, yes of course ? 









						Royal Canadian Infantry Corps - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Sep 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> If you mean the Highland/ Scottish units that represent a large proportion of the RCIC, then, yes of course ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As someone with Scottish ancestors I find it problematic that my culture is being appropriated so willy nilly.


----------



## Weinie (20 Sep 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> As someone with Scottish ancestors I find it problematic that my culture is being appropriated so willy nilly.


I see what you did there.


----------



## dangerboy (21 Sep 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> CADCC #26 CA Dress Instructions amendment (via email). I can fire it over to you tomorrow.


On  ACIMS it has been updated, it says " Trousers bottom may be unbloused in No. 5B unless strict uniformity is required at the discretion of the commander in place. For safety reasons, unbloused trousers must hang at natural length with hook and loop/strings attached snugly at ankle height, and trouser cuff inserts, strings and socks are not to be seen.

https://acims.mil.ca/org/ArmyG1/Dre... - Chap 5 - Section 5 - Operational Dress.pdf


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Sep 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Combat pants no longer require to bloused? Now they've went and crossed a line. I wonder if the Canex will have a fire sale on boot bands.


I just used the integral laces…


😂 j/k


----------



## IRepoCans (21 Sep 2022)

Figures blousing's a concern: low blousing has been a thing for a while fellas (the ECUs were designed with that in mind nine years ago), especially so when the majority of dudes wear lower cut boots in garrison to start.

If that isn't good enough, just look how British it is.

Outside of that, the hockey flow and mullets have been so far been quite respectable.


----------



## brihard (21 Sep 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> As someone with Scottish ancestors I find it problematic that my culture is being appropriated so willy nilly.


The kilts _do_ make it so much easier for your willy to be appropriated.


----------



## FSTO (24 Dec 2022)

I’m constantly pulling up my pants because I have no Hips and the CF belt buckle always seems to be slipping. So I figured that since the dress regulations have been modernized I would see what would happen if I wore suspenders with my N3. Now if I wore the gawd awful sweater this wouldn’t be an issue at all, but since I would melt if I wore it the sweater was a no go. 
I also did a search in the new regs and the word “suspenders” never came up. 
So the last time I was in Ottawa I wore the suspenders (black) and the only comment I got was from the CRCN COS who with an arched eyebrow and a grin said “You’re pushing it Don”.

So, suspenders it is!!!😜


----------



## brihard (24 Dec 2022)

FSTO said:


> I’m constantly pulling up my pants because I have no Hips and the CF belt buckle always seems to be slipping. So I figured that since the dress regulations have been modernized I would see what would happen if I wore suspenders with my N3. Now if I wore the gawd awful sweater this wouldn’t be an issue at all, but since I would melt if I wore it the sweater was a no go.
> I also did a search in the new regs and the word “suspenders” never came up.
> So the last time I was in Ottawa I wore the suspenders (black) and the only comment I got was from the CRCN COS who with an arched eyebrow and a grin said “You’re pushing it Don”.
> 
> So, suspenders it is!!!😜


Wait, but that almost sounds reasonable and effective. Why are you doing this?


----------



## Navy_Pete (24 Dec 2022)

@FSTO; do you put them under the shoulder ranks?  

See a bunch of people wearing the stupid cocktail nametags regularly, so why not?


----------



## FSTO (24 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> @FSTO; do you put them under the shoulder ranks?
> 
> See a bunch of people wearing the stupid cocktail nametags regularly, so why not?


I put them under the slip ons once but it’s a bit of a number2 issue. Having the straps between the button and the collar works just fine.


----------



## kratz (24 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> @FSTO; do you put them under the shoulder ranks?
> 
> See a bunch of people wearing the stupid cocktail nametags regularly, so why not?



I was desperately wishing I had a cocktail nametag at a couple Christmas parties this month. 
Those look far better than the sticky labels organisers were handing out to attendees to write their names on.


----------



## Navy_Pete (24 Dec 2022)

kratz said:


> I was desperately wishing I had a cocktail nametag at a couple Christmas parties this month.
> Those look far better than the sticky labels organisers were handing out to attendees to write their names on.


I'm assuming if some had a cocktail name tag, you also had your normal nametag; why would you need a sticky label on top of it?

Cocktail nametags are useful when you are mixing with other countries at some kind of social thing where people don't recognize your rank/uniform, but if I really want to know where someone works, I'm sure it will come up during the introductions. Otherwise they are just another bit of unecessary running around when you show up to a unit/new posting, and all of mine have had the unit badge pop off at one time or another, but have never been able to get a backup.


----------



## Grimey (24 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I'm assuming if some had a cocktail name tag, you also had your normal nametag; why would you need a sticky label on top of it?
> 
> Cocktail nametags are useful when you are mixing with other countries at some kind of social thing where people don't recognize your rank/uniform, but if I really want to know where someone works, I'm sure it will come up during the introductions. Otherwise they are just another bit of unecessary running around when you show up to a unit/new posting, and all of mine have had the unit badge pop off at one time or another, but have never been able to get a backup.


Mine had artificer spelt ‘articifer’.  No one ever did notice 😀.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Dec 2022)

FSTO said:


> I’m constantly pulling up my pants because I have no Hips and the CF belt buckle always seems to be slipping. So I figured that since the dress regulations have been modernized I would see what would happen if I wore suspenders with my N3. Now if I wore the gawd awful sweater this wouldn’t be an issue at all, but since I would melt if I wore it the sweater was a no go.
> I also did a search in the new regs and the word “suspenders” never came up.
> So the last time I was in Ottawa I wore the suspenders (black) and the only comment I got was from the CRCN COS who with an arched eyebrow and a grin said “You’re pushing it Don”.
> 
> So, suspenders it is!!!😜



The only time I don't wear suspenders is in NCDs and N3s. 

The looks I got at the CBG HQ when I took off the CBT shirt for work lol 

Welcome to the club.  I have a spot and glass of whiskey waiting for you


----------



## kratz (24 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I'm assuming if some had a cocktail name tag, you also had your normal nametag; why would you need a sticky label on top of it?
> 
> Cocktail nametags are useful when you are mixing with other countries at some kind of social thing where people don't recognize your rank/uniform, but if I really want to know where someone works, I'm sure it will come up during the introductions. Otherwise they are just another bit of unecessary running around when you show up to a unit/new posting, and all of mine have had the unit badge pop off at one time or another, but have never been able to get a backup.


I'm retired now. These were civilian parties with many professionals who didn't know each other.


----------



## Navy_Pete (24 Dec 2022)

kratz said:


> I'm retired now. These were civilian parties with many professionals who didn't know each other.


That makes sense, that's a reasonable time to wear a cocktail nametag.

Kicking around the office? Not so much.


----------



## Maxman1 (26 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I'm assuming if some had a cocktail name tag, you also had your normal nametag; why would you need a sticky label on top of it?
> 
> Cocktail nametags are useful when you are mixing with other countries at some kind of social thing where people don't recognize your rank/uniform, but if I really want to know where someone works, I'm sure it will come up during the introductions. Otherwise they are just another bit of unecessary running around when you show up to a unit/new posting, and all of mine have had the unit badge pop off at one time or another, but have never been able to get a backup.



Wearing two name tags makes me think of this:


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Dec 2022)

FSTO said:


> I’m constantly pulling up my pants because I have no Hips and the CF belt buckle always seems to be slipping. So I figured that since the dress regulations have been modernized I would see what would happen if I wore suspenders with my N3. Now if I wore the gawd awful sweater this wouldn’t be an issue at all, but since I would melt if I wore it the sweater was a no go.
> I also did a search in the new regs and the word “suspenders” never came up.
> So the last time I was in Ottawa I wore the suspenders (black) and the only comment I got was from the CRCN COS who with an arched eyebrow and a grin said “You’re pushing it Don”.
> 
> So, suspenders it is!!!😜


Can you wear them with gloves?


----------



## Lumber (26 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> @FSTO; do you put them under the shoulder ranks?
> 
> See a bunch of people wearing the stupid cocktail nametags regularly, so why not?


Informal direction was going around in Halifax that basic name tags are out and that everyone is suppose to wear the cocktail name tags with their 3Bs.


----------



## Navy_Pete (26 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> Informal direction was going around in Halifax that basic name tags are out and that everyone is suppose to wear the cocktail name tags with their 3Bs.


Of course it is; if only people took the formal orders to shave when they are posted to ship and have to do firefighting as seriously as informal direction to wear a stupid nametag.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Of course it is; if only people took the formal orders to shave when they are posted to ship and have to do firefighting as seriously as informal direction to wear a stupid nametag.


But I love the fake informal direction that exists in the RCN.  It's made us such a trustworthy and transparent organization that is a desired employer of the masses 🤣

I especially love it because it also demonstrates that our Officer Corps is too cowardly to put their name to anything in writing 🤣

Just who we want leading our fellow citizens in to battle 😄


----------



## Navy_Pete (26 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> But I love the fake informal direction that exists in the RCN.  It's made us such a trustworthy and transparent organization that is a desired employer of the masses 🤣
> 
> I especially love it because it also demonstrates that our Officer Corps is too cowardly to put their name to anything in writing 🤣
> 
> Just who we want leading our fellow citizens in to battle 😄


It's just ridiculous; the RCN has become a clown show with morale badges, kept afloat by sailors and support staff, while the institution rocks full wig and red nose regalia.


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> Informal direction was going around in Halifax that basic name tags are out and that everyone is suppose to wear the cocktail name tags with their 3Bs.



That was the direction given from RCN Dress Committee a couple years back.  Nothing like Command changing dress regs and making units fund it


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> That was the direction given from RCN Dress Committee a couple years back.  Nothing like Command changing dress regs and making units fund it


Committees don't give direction aka orders, there's our first problem.



Navy_Pete said:


> It's just ridiculous; the RCN has become a clown show with morale badges, kept afloat by sailors and support staff, while the institution rocks full wig and red nose regalia.


It is a clown show


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Dec 2022)

FSTO said:


> I’m constantly pulling up my pants because I have no Hips and the CF belt buckle always seems to be slipping. So I figured that since the dress regulations have been modernized I would see what would happen if I wore suspenders with my N3. Now if I wore the gawd awful sweater this wouldn’t be an issue at all, but since I would melt if I wore it the sweater was a no go.
> I also did a search in the new regs and the word “suspenders” never came up.
> So the last time I was in Ottawa I wore the suspenders (black) and the only comment I got was from the CRCN COS who with an arched eyebrow and a grin said “You’re pushing it Don”.
> 
> So, suspenders it is!!!😜


Yes, as you age your hips seem to disappear, so belt and britches it is. Suspenders were used by Brits and Canadians in the old days, so the Button and Bow people will be happy with a return to tradition.


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Committees don't give direction aka orders, there's our first problem.
> 
> 
> It is a clown show



You know that, and I know that.  

CRCN and the committee, at the time, didn't care.  It was direction.  I've bought hundreds, if not, thousands of the stupid things.

It was absolutely an incorrect way of implementing this.  The RCN committee should be taking its points to the CAF committee where is gets debated; and if supported pushed for final approvals.


----------



## Navy_Pete (26 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> You know that, and I know that.
> 
> CRCN and the committee, at the time, didn't care.  It was direction.  I've bought hundreds, if not, thousands of the stupid things.
> 
> It was absolutely an incorrect way of implementing this.  The RCN committee should be taking its points to the CAF committee where is gets debated; and if supported pushed for final approvals.


Usually when I point out I don't report to the CRCN, which always goes down well.

No one is buying them in MEPM though (or other non-CRCN units) AFAIK, so not something I'm going to lose sleep over, but seems like our time could be better spent on something actually useful (like why the RCN is letting people not shave on duty, and rolling up with goatees and whatnot in bunker gear when they are supposed to be able to fire fighting or other roles that need an SCBA).


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Usually when I point out I don't report to the CRCN, which always goes down well.
> 
> No one is buying them in MEPM though (or other non-CRCN units) AFAIK, so not something I'm going to lose sleep over, but seems like our time could be better spent on something actually useful (like why the RCN is letting people not shave on duty, and rolling up with goatees and whatnot in bunker gear when they are supposed to be able to fire fighting or other roles that need an SCBA).



LOL, I had a couple of Chiefs lose their minds over a "foreign skill badge" on my Naval DEUs that I earned while I was an Officer in another environment.  It's one of the fancy and uncommon ones 😉

I sent them a photoshopped picture of the CAF Dress Manual with the badge circled in red and then asked them why some of the Naval "skill" Badges weren't in there and where I could find the proper reference for their authorization? 😄


----------



## Navy_Pete (26 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> LOL, I had a couple of Chiefs lose their minds over a "foreign skill badge" on my Naval DEUs that I earned while I was an Officer in another environment.  It's one of the fancy and uncommon ones 😉
> 
> I sent them a photoshopped picture of the CAF Dress Manual with the badge circled in red and then asked them why some of the Naval "skill" Badges weren't in there and where I could find the proper reference for their authorization? 😄


Not as dramatic but I started carrying around the page from the dress manual allowing leather belts with NCDs because it seemed stupid to me to wear a flammable belt in FR clothes (plus the CAF dress belts generally suck and don't stay done up anyway). Had to whip that paper out a few times but was fun stopping a few people before they really got wound up; it was a bit like deflating a balloon.

Making friends and influencing people one day at a time I guess.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Committees don't give direction aka orders, there's our first problem.


Correct - only someone who commands can give an order. This "committee " bullshit is a fancy way of avoiding responsibility. 

Its not a corporation - its the CAF.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (26 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> But I love the fake informal direction that exists in the RCN.  It's made us such a trustworthy and transparent organization that is a desired employer of the masses 🤣
> 
> I especially love it because it also demonstrates that our Officer Corps is too cowardly to put their name to anything in writing 🤣
> 
> Just who we want leading our fellow citizens in to battle 😄


Considering they literally made up fake new ranks. Put out a canforgen stating we are now to use those ranks, and literally openly defy the QR&Os which states the legal ranks as defined by parliament. It isn’t surprising how it is running.


----------



## SupersonicMax (26 Dec 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Correct - only someone who commands can give an order. This "committee " bullshit is a fancy way of avoiding responsibility.
> 
> Its not a corporation - its the CAF.


Committees make recommendations to commanders who order things.  Committees/working groups exists (and need to exist) to inform/advise commanders.


----------



## kratz (26 Dec 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Committees make* recommendations to commanders* who order things.  Committees/working groups exists (and need to exist) to inform/advise commanders.



I do believe it's those commanders, hiding behind committee decisions who are being discussed here.   If the elephant in the room is this obvious, then say it.


----------



## SupersonicMax (26 Dec 2022)

kratz said:


> I do believe it's those commanders, hiding behind committee decisions who are being discussed here.   If the elephant in the room is this obvious, then say it.


If they decide to go with a committee recommendation, how are they hiding behind it?  They gave an order to follow.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Dec 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Committees make recommendations to commanders who order things.  Committees/working groups exists (and need to exist) to inform/advise commanders.


Yep they make "recommendations".  Recommendations are made all the time.  Commanders are free to disregard recommendations at their pleasure.

But Commanders should own those decisions.  It's not the Dress Committee that made that decision.

Commander's also shouldn't be making decisions that violate higher authorities and orders.  Like the Navy's recent circumvention of QR&Os to push through a "rank change" for cheap political points.


----------



## kratz (26 Dec 2022)

Followed over the cliff.


Humphrey Bogart said:


> Yep they make "recommendations".  Recommendations are made all the time.  Commanders are free to disregard recommendations at their pleasure.
> 
> But Commanders should own those decisions.  It's not the Dress Committee that made that decision.
> 
> Commander's also shouldn't be making decisions that violate higher authorities and orders.  Like the Navy's recent circumvention of QR&Os to push through a "rank change" for cheap political points.



I am unapologetic. I own my thoughts and convictions. The internet has a memory that would twist an Mammoth (assuming Elephant  predecessor). I am ready to snap this is but one of a handful of silent topics. 

"Listen to your troops, when the ranks become quiet, you've stooped leading."  - Colin Powell (paraphrase)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Dec 2022)

kratz said:


> Followed over the cliff.
> 
> 
> I am unapologetic. I own my thoughts and convictions. The internet has a memory that would twist an Mammoth (assuming Elephant  predecessor). I am ready to snap this is but one of a handful of silent topics.
> ...


The best part about being "retired" is you're free to call out all of this nonsense to your hearts content 😎


----------



## SupersonicMax (26 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Yep they make "recommendations".  Recommendations are made all the time.  Commanders are free to disregard recommendations at their pleasure.
> 
> But Commanders should own those decisions.  It's not the Dress Committee that made that decision.
> 
> Commander's also shouldn't be making decisions that violate higher authorities and orders.  Like the Navy's recent circumvention of QR&Os to push through a "rank change" for cheap political points.


Publishing an order with your name on it _is_ owning it.

What makes you believe the rank change wasn’t first discussed with lawyers and politicians?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Dec 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Publishing an order with your name on it _is_ owning it.
> 
> What makes you believe the rank change wasn’t first discussed with lawyers and politicians?


There is a procedure for making amendments to QR&Os & the NDA.  Procedures and Codified Law need to be respected by the Military Chain of Command.

This lack of adherence to very simple due process is exactly why the CAF is in the absolute shit state it is in.

Substitute Rank Change for Sexual Misconduct, different problems, same lack of due process.

It's ok though, with such esteemed Leadership like our Former CDS, who said, and I quote "I own the Military Police", I have come to expect nothing less.


----------



## Lumber (26 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Not as dramatic but I started carrying around the page from the dress manual allowing leather belts with NCDs because it seemed stupid to me to wear a flammable belt in FR clothes (plus the CAF dress belts generally suck and don't stay done up anyway). Had to whip that paper out a few times but was fun stopping a few people before they really got wound up; it was a bit like deflating a balloon.
> 
> Making friends and influencing people one day at a time I guess.


Was this on the west coast circa 2012/2013?


----------



## Navy_Pete (26 Dec 2022)

Lumber said:


> Was this on the west coast circa 2012/2013?


No, East coast, around 2009/2010, then again in 2015/16. And occasionally since on TD.  I think there are a few similar weirdos though who do the same, but I just find it easier than arguing with someone what the dress manual says.


----------



## SupersonicMax (26 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> There is a procedure for making amendments to QR&Os & the NDA.  Procedures and Codified Law need to be respected by the Military Chain of Command.
> 
> This lack of adherence to very simple due process is exactly why the CAF is in the absolute shit state it is in.
> 
> ...


There are also procedures to ammend things quickly, outside of normal cycles. The CDS has that power through the QR&Os and NDA, as long as it is not inconsistent with the NDA (which changing how we call ourselves is not).


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Dec 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> There are also procedures to ammend things quickly, outside of normal cycles. The CDS has that power through the QR&Os and NDA, as long as it is not inconsistent with the NDA (which changing how we call ourselves is not).


That's not what QR&O Section 1.23 says.

It says the following:



It says the CDS is allowed to issue orders but that those orders are not inconsistent with the National Defence Act.

I don't know what you think the word inconsistent means?  It's an interesting interpretation, that much is certain.

Especially when QR&O Vol 1, Chap 3 lays out exactly what the Ranks are in the Canadian Armed Forces:






						QR&O: Volume I - Chapter 3 Rank, Seniority, Command and Precedence - Canada.ca
					

Queen's Regulations and Orders - QR&O - Chapter 3 - Rank, Seniority, Command and Precedence




					www.canada.ca
				




It also uses some other key terminology in that chapter, particularly the word:  SHALL

I also find it interesting that the Air Force managed to get Aviator inserted in to the QR&Os but changing Naval ranks to gender neutral naming conventions was apparently just a bridge too far for the Navy apparently 😄


You may think it was the right call to change the rank names.  I also think it was the right call, but....

There is a proper way to do it.  The CAF isn't doing things properly.  It's doing things for political convenience and creating additional problems for itself down the road.

There is a great primer by prominent CAF legal pundit Rory Fowler on this very issue.


----------



## SupersonicMax (26 Dec 2022)

Sailor and seaman can be considered synonym.  In that sense, it is not inconsistent.  Inconsistent doesn’t mean it has to be the exact same…. Just like many things in the military and life, intent is more important.  And the intent between the seaman series and the sailor series is pretty much the same.

As I said, there are ways to do things before the process catches up.  The process is not the end, the result is and while the process should be used most of the time, when there is a legal/regulatory window, there is nothing wrong with by-passing a process for a more immediate effect.  Not sure what problem you foresee happening with this change….  Worst case, GiC says no and we go back to seaman…

Of course the flip side is that the leg work has to be done eventually, something the CAF has been terrible at, with active CANFORGENs from close to 30 years ago still active….


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Dec 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Sailor and seaman can be considered synonym.  In that sense, it is not inconsistent.  Inconsistent doesn’t mean it has to be the exact same…


See QR&O Chapter 3, Volume 1 on what ranks, IAW the table to 3.01, are to be used in the Canadian Armed Forces.

The only thing inconsistent here is the dance you're doing around the QR&Os, which are very clear.

I guess it's consistent in so far as the CAF being consistently inconsistent.


----------



## SupersonicMax (26 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> See QR&O Chapter 3, Volume 1 on what ranks, IAW the table to 3.01, are to be used in the Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> The only thing inconsistent here is the dance you're doing around the QR&Os, which are very clear.
> 
> I guess it's consistent in so far as the CAF being consistently inconsistent.


Explain to me how using Sailor  is « not compatible or in keeping with » using Seaman?

Also, please point out where, in the QR&Os, Master Seaman is defined.

It is not a dance.  It is using intent vs black and white, something you don’t seem capable of doing.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (27 Dec 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Sailor and seaman can be considered synonym.  In that sense, it is not inconsistent.  Inconsistent doesn’t mean it has to be the exact same…. Just like many things in the military and life, intent is more important.  And the intent between the seaman series and the sailor series is pretty much the same.
> 
> As I said, there are ways to do things before the process catches up.  The process is not the end, the result is and while the process should be used most of the time, when there is a legal/regulatory window, there is nothing wrong with by-passing a process for a more immediate effect.  Not sure what problem you foresee happening with this change….  Worst case, GiC says no and we go back to seaman…


The issue is with the way this was done.  It's actually the Governor-in-Council/Minister who should be making this announcement.  It's absolutely within the rights of the Governor-in-Council or Minister to make this change which is what should have happened.

A smart CDS would have endorsed this but not given the order themselves.  It's not just about doing the right thing, it's about making sure it's done properly.

*That's how you protect the institution*, by making sure all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed and that regulations are followed.



SupersonicMax said:


> *Of course the flip side is that the leg work has to be done eventually, something the CAF has been terrible at, with active CANFORGENs from close to 30 years ago still active….*


Agreed, see CFAOs which were supposed to be all converted to DAODs about a decade+ ago.


SupersonicMax said:


> Explain to me how using Sailor  is « not compatible or in keeping with » using Seaman?


That's easy to answer.  The QR&O's define a few key words which I already alluded to above.  

Particularly the word SHALL



Shall is imperative; therefore, when it says:



It's pretty clear those are the only ranks that are to be used.

The job of the CDS isn't to make up his own interpretation of the QR&Os, it's to enforce the QR&Os.  


SupersonicMax said:


> Also, please point out where, in the QR&Os, Master Seaman is defined.
> 
> It is not a dance.  It is using intent vs black and white, something you don’t seem capable of doing.


That's easy to answer:

Master Seaman and Master Corporal are not ranks, they are appointments.  Their rank is Leading Seaman or Corporal, their appointment is Master Seaman or Master Corporal.

A Corporal and Master Corporal actually hold the exact same rank.  The Master Corporal holds an appointment though.


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Dec 2022)

The Minister made the announcement (Royal Canadian Navy release new rank designation - Canadian Military Family Magazine).

For Master Seaman, look at QR&Os 3.08.  The only appointment possible is to Master Corporal. I am just using this to demonstrate the silliness of the argument you make.

For « shall », yes, we need to use the rank designations in 3.01, until an order, which is NOT inconsistent with but may be different from the QR&Os, is issued by the CDS and supersedes 3.01..


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (27 Dec 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> The Minister made the announcement (Royal Canadian Navy release new rank designation - Canadian Military Family Magazine).
> 
> For Master Seaman, look at QR&Os 3.08.  The only appointment possible is to Master Corporal. I am just using this to demonstrate the silliness of the argument you make.
> 
> For « shall », it is, until an order, which is NOT incompatible with the QR&Os but may be different, is issued by the CDS.


There is nothing silly about the argument.  I guarantee you if I made a poll here, the vast majority would find your argument more silly 😉

Because, you're a Senior Officer and you've made the argument that the "highest laws in the land" when it comes to governance of the CAF, don't matter.

They can be changed "cuz we feel like it".  

This particular line from the link you posted made me want to barf in my mouth:



> Chief of the Defence Staff noted more inclusive CAF​Chief of the Defence Staff General Jonathan Vance stated, “The Royal Canadian Navy, *our senior service*, continues to adapt to better reflect Canadian society. Today’s announcement of *changes to junior ranks nomenclature* is just one example of how we continue to work to remove barriers to a more inclusive Canadian Armed Forces.”



The RCN isn't a service, it's an environment

They haven't changed anything because they didn't bother updating any of the official documentation.

Then there are these zingers:



> Vice-Admiral Art McDonald, Commander RCN, says the *RCN has profited immensely from the dialogue regarding the rank change initiative this summer.*
> 
> He continued, “We emerge from it with a greater insight into who we are, including the sobering reality that we all need to do more, individually and collectively, to be diverse, inclusive, and welcoming. More positively, we can now take satisfaction in knowing that through this initiative we have taken another important and far from symbolic incremental step in ensuring that the RCN remains the modern Service that all shipmates deserve – indeed, that our nation deserves.”



"The Navy" drove this, they consulted the members before it had even been authorized.  They blunt forced the change and did it improperly, just like everything else they do.  

I'm laughing at that entire article though because all three of those bums have been shelved, two of them permanently!  Thank god!


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> They can be changed "cuz we feel like it".


As long as it is not inconsistent with with the _National Defence Act_ or with any regulations made by the Governor in Council, the Treasury Board or the Minister, pretty much, yes.  That’s the type of authority that comes wih being the CDS.

I wrote policy and orders for a good portion of my career.  I worked in a domain where we bypassed the airworthiness certification process for time savings by weighing risk and comparing it to the « reward ».  I understand policy intent, I understand processes but I also understand risk and risk acceptance. In this case, there is no doubt in my mind that while the approved rank titles reside in 3.01 but an interim, legitimate order replaced those for the Navy.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (27 Dec 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> As long as it is not inconsistent with with the _National Defence Act_ or with any regulations made by the Governor in Council, the Treasury Board or the Minister, pretty much, yes.  That’s the type of authority that comes wih being the CDS.


I don't know how to explain to you that issuing an order that contravenes the NDA is "inconsistent with the NDA".


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I don't know how to explain to you that issuing an order that contravenes the NDA is "inconsistent with the NDA".


It does not contravene the NDA.  The NDA states that rank designations are found in regulations made by the GiC. That regulation is QR&O 3.01.  QR&O 1.23, however, gives the power to the CDS to issue orders that are not inconsistent with the _National Defence Act_ or with any regulations made by the Governor in Council, the Treasury Board or the Minister.  An interim order directing the use of « sailor » instead of « seaman » while different, is not inconsistent with 3.01.

You can’t possibly tell me that using sailor is* contrary to using seaman to the extent that it implies its negation, or that it brings ambiguity.*


----------



## Maxman1 (27 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> But I love the fake informal direction that exists in the RCN.  It's made us such a trustworthy and transparent organization that is a desired employer of the masses 🤣
> 
> I especially love it because it also demonstrates that our Officer Corps is too cowardly to put their name to anything in writing 🤣
> 
> Just who we want leading our fellow citizens in to battle 😄



I've heard some people still think the rain jacket/toque/gloves joke is a real thing.


----------



## ArmyRick (27 Dec 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Sailor and seaman can be considered synonym.  In that sense, it is not inconsistent.  Inconsistent doesn’t mean it has to be the exact same…. Just like many things in the military and life, intent is more important.  And the intent between the seaman series and the sailor series is pretty much the same.
> 
> As I said, there are ways to do things before the process catches up.  The process is not the end, the result is and while the process should be used most of the time, when there is a legal/regulatory window, there is nothing wrong with by-passing a process for a more immediate effect.  Not sure what problem you foresee happening with this change….  Worst case, GiC says no and we go back to seaman…
> 
> Of course the flip side is that the leg work has to be done eventually, something the CAF has been terrible at, with active CANFORGENs from close to 30 years ago still active….


Nope. Big Nope. That's NOT how its supposed to be done. Are you an "ends justifies the means' kind of guy? That's now the army functioned when I was in. Or wasn't supposed to.


----------



## ArmyRick (27 Dec 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> It does not contravene the NDA.  The NDA states that rank designations are found in regulations made by the GiC. That regulation is QR&O 3.01.  QR&O 1.23, however, gives the power to the CDS to issue orders that are not inconsistent with the _National Defence Act_ or with any regulations made by the Governor in Council, the Treasury Board or the Minister.  An interim order directing the use of « sailor » instead of « seaman » while different, is not inconsistent with 3.01.
> 
> You can’t possibly tell me that using sailor is* contrary to using seaman to the extent that it implies its negation, or that it brings ambiguity.*


Its a willy nilly change on the fly to meet the trends of a small segment of society, a SMALL segment. 

Hey why use the term "Master" in the ranks Master Corporal and Master SeaMAN? Isn't Master an "oppressive" term from days of slavery? Maybe we can call them "Executive Corporals" instead? 

Hey since we are in a willy nilly, anything goes mood (like hair styles and cuts are a free for all sh*tshow as an example), why not have the members of the CAF just wear whatever DEU they feel like? 

Screw it, why bother with rank? Lets just hold a free for all style of chain of command.

Or maybe the CAF (you know, the MILITARY) can actually have lawful orders and directions, established and purposeful chain of command and some respect for uniformity along with history and tradition?

What do I know? I am a crusty old retired grunt WO


----------



## kev994 (27 Dec 2022)

Maxman1 said:


> I've heard some people still think the rain jacket/toque/gloves joke is a real thing.


Some people can’t read, they get all their info from the smoke pit.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (27 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> Some people can’t read, they get all their info from the smoke pit.


Or CAF Reddit 😆

The problem seems to occur when some of us can read, we begin to question things instead of blindly following 😉.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Not as dramatic but I started carrying around the page from the dress manual allowing leather belts with NCDs because it seemed stupid to me to wear a flammable belt in FR clothes (plus the CAF dress belts generally suck and don't stay done up anyway). Had to whip that paper out a few times but was fun stopping a few people before they really got wound up; it was a bit like deflating a balloon.
> 
> Making friends and influencing people one day at a time I guess.



I've worn a leather fireman's belt for the best part of my career and never been questioned on it.  In fact members of ST(A) wore the same belt. 

Could it be a wardroom thing ?


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Dec 2022)

ArmyRick said:


> Nope. Big Nope. That's NOT how its supposed to be done. Are you an "ends justifies the means' kind of guy? That's now the army functioned when I was in. Or wasn't supposed to.


In fact, there is a legal and regulatory framework to do exactly this…

I am the kind of person that tries to do the right thing by doing things right but when doing things right prevents me from doing the right thing, I’ll find grey space that allows me to do the right thing.


----------



## kev994 (27 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Or CAF Reddit 😆
> 
> The problem seems to occur when some of us can read, we begin to question things instead of blindly following 😉.


That reminds me of a Chief being upset because Cpl Bloggins had “found an obscure QR&O” stating that he could meet with the CO, and insisted that this was not going to be a pleasant conversation for Bloggins. Shortly thereafter Bloggins’ boss’ boss was relieved of their supervisory position for burying a harassment allegation. It’s almost like that QR&O was put there for a reason.


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> That reminds me of a Chief being upset because Cpl Bloggins had “found an obscure QR&O” stating that he could meet with the CO, and insisted that this was not going to be a pleasant conversation for Bloggins. Shortly thereafter Bloggins’ boss’ boss was relieved of their supervisory position for burying a harassment allegation. It’s almost like that QR&O was put there for a reason.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Dec 2022)

Maxman1 said:


> I've heard some people still think the rain jacket/toque/gloves joke is a real thing.


It was at one time a very real thing. A former BCWO in Shilo made it his duty to “counsel” soldiers exiting the Canex they were in violation of the dress regs.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Dec 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> It was at one time a very real thing. A former BCWO in Shilo made it his duty to “counsel” soldiers exiting the Canex they were in violation of the dress regs.



Youre very correct.

It never ceases to amaze me how petty we can be.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Youre very correct.
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me how petty we can be.


This particular BCWO was described as useless when he was a MCpl by a very outstanding WO. Yet he achieved the rank of CWO because….I don’t know how he did but he did.


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Dec 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> It was at one time a very real thing. A former BCWO in Shilo made it his duty to “counsel” soldiers exiting the Canex they were in violation of the dress regs.


Pre Deployment trg for Bosnia, 2VP Bn Gp. We had to walk around Wainwright with four different hats in our pockets. Where we were on the camp determined which hat we had to wear. Shit. You. Not.

Ooh, almost forgot. Could only wear the white balaclava if you were wearing mukluks. White hats and black boots was just soooo last year.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Dec 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Pre Deployment trg for Bosnia, 2VP Bn Gp. We had to walk around Wainwright with four different hats in our pockets. Where we were on the camp determined which hat we had to wear. Shit. You. Not.


96/97? I was in A Coy


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Dec 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> 96/97? I was in A Coy


Correct sir! 12 Fun Sqn.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Dec 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Correct sir! 12 Fun Sqn.


Small world.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (27 Dec 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Pre Deployment trg for Bosnia, 2VP Bn Gp. We had to walk around Wainwright with four different hats in our pockets. Where we were on the camp determined which hat we had to wear. Shit. You. Not.
> 
> Ooh, almost forgot. Could only wear the white balaclava if you were wearing mukluks. White hats and black boots was just soooo last year.


My first CSM was at Sarajevo Airport in 1992.  We got to talking about "stupid stuff in the Army" one day and he told me about what happened when they arrived in Sarajevo as a sort of lesson from when he was a young Private.

He said their Company Commander wasn't the sharpest knife and the only experience anyone in the Company had was some people had in an area of "operations" was a few had done a "peacekeeping" tour in Cyprus (so basically none).

When they arrived in Sarajevo, the OC ordered the Company to form up in a hollow square with all the vehicles parked behind them in parade format.  As they had done in Cyprus they placed all their weapons and FFE in the vehicles and then locked them up with padlocks, like they do at the Infantry School.

He laughed about it but he said the Serbs and Bosnians who were fighting on other side of them must have been pondering just who "these idiotic Canadians were?".  One of the belligerent parties decided to send the Company a welcome gift and decided to shell their position with mortars.  Everyone was sent scrambling and the drivers, who had the keys to the padlocks ended up under random vehicles and nobody was able to get their weapons or FFE 🤣.

He ended the story with a "Don't worry Sir, if you think things are stupid sometimes, trust me, it used to be a lot worse!"  🤣


----------



## Navy_Pete (27 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I've worn a leather fireman's belt for the best part of my career and never been questioned on it.  In fact members of ST(A) wore the same belt.
> 
> Could it be a wardroom thing ?


I don't know, only one person that said anything was an officer, the rest were NCOs.

Maybe because I'm an officer they thought I should wear the stupid plastic belt (with the crappy fastener)?  🤷‍♂️ It's not like a commision comes with some kind of fire resistant spell (although that would be cool).

I don't like to tell folks what to do without being willing to do it myself, so kept my second layer nearby etc, so this just seemed like a normal extension of that, as I would normally suggest to folks they wear a leather belt vice the DEU one. I've seen the FR testing on our NCDs, and makes a huge difference to have the layers on, so makes zero sense to have a belt on their which would turn into a molten burning mess within the same test, and the post fire burns from people having synthetic tshirts etc melt onto them is pretty grim.


----------



## brihard (27 Dec 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> For « shall », yes, we need to use the rank designations in 3.01, until an order, which is NOT inconsistent with but may be different from the QR&Os, is issued by the CDS and supersedes 3.01..



If a QR&O explicitly names the different ranks with the imperative ‘shall’ (which it does), and if a QR&O is a regulatory instrument issued by the GiC (which it is), that how is an order, NOT of a regulatory nature, by the CDS, to use _different_ ranks possibly _not_ inconsistent with a regulation (the aforementioned QR&O). ‘Different’, in the context of “the law says call you that rank but instead I’ll call this other one”, is inherently and unequivocally inconsistent with the regulation.

You’re trying to tap dance around this one with a Bill-Clintonesque redefinition of what ‘inconsistent’ means, but it’s a word with plain meaning and plain definition.

QR&O is law and prescribes the ranks. The only legal way to change those ranks is to change that law, which in this case can be done by regulatory instrument.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (27 Dec 2022)

brihard said:


> If a QR&O explicitly names the different ranks with the imperative ‘shall’ (which it does), and if a QR&O is a regulatory instrument issued by the GiC (which it is), that how is an order, NOT of a regulatory nature, by the CDS, to use _different_ ranks possibly _not_ inconsistent with a regulation (the aforementioned QR&O). ‘Different’, in the context of “the law says call you that rank but instead I’ll call this other one”, is inherently and unequivocally inconsistent with the regulation.
> 
> You’re trying to tap dance around this one with a Bill-Clintonesque redefinition of what ‘inconsistent’ means, but it’s a word with plain meaning and plain definition.
> 
> QR&O is law and prescribes the ranks. The only legal way to change those ranks is to change that law, which in this case can be done by regulatory instrument.


I have no problem with the rank change but I want to law to change and for it to be done properly.

I don't think that's difficult to ask is it?


----------



## Navy_Pete (27 Dec 2022)

The Navy is great at saying we'll do stuff later but we want to announce it now; we've been doing it for decades with maintenance so not surprised they did it with a simple rank name change (despite there being plenty of time to update it).

There is at least 1 NAVORD that includes direction that runs counter to CDS CAF general safety orders that the RCN has known about for well over 18 months but won't rescind that portion. Not sure if that's actually an illegal order, but as it's a life safety issue they won't address, don't think this (or the stupid moustache pin, or whatever other stupid things they have done/will do) will get prioritized to actually do properly.


----------



## brihard (27 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> or the stupid moustache pin



Has ‘moustache ride’ found a way to enter the vernacular for box ticking pin-collection exercises yet, or is that a no-no?


----------



## Navy_Pete (27 Dec 2022)

brihard said:


> Has ‘moustache ride’ found a way to enter the vernacular for box ticking pin-collection exercises yet, or is that a no-no?



I'm sure it probably is a no-no that comes up every once in a while anyway, but I think it's like the leather flying jacket; some people think it looks awesome the rest of us are laughing at them.

Aside from skipping the regs, and not being based on actual OFP milestones/qualifications, I think they are just poorly designed and ugly, with no sense of style/aesthetics. If they at least looked good I probably wouldn't actually laugh in someone's face about it.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I don't know, only one person that said anything was an officer, the rest were NCOs.
> 
> Maybe because I'm an officer they thought I should wear the stupid plastic belt (with the crappy fastener)?  🤷‍♂️ It's not like a commision comes with some kind of fire resistant spell (although that would be cool).
> 
> I don't like to tell folks what to do without being willing to do it myself, so kept my second layer nearby etc, so this just seemed like a normal extension of that, as I would normally suggest to folks they wear a leather belt vice the DEU one. I've seen the FR testing on our NCDs, and makes a huge difference to have the layers on, so makes zero sense to have a belt on their which would turn into a molten burning mess within the same test, and the post fire burns from people having synthetic tshirts etc melt onto them is pretty grim.



Weird.  I first ware the leather firearms belt on VDQ in 2006, I was a LS.  And it's been on me in NCDs ever since.  

I don't know what to tell ya.  ST(A) was wearing the same belt during WUPs on FRE in 2019.

That stupid issued one with the faux brass slide buckle is garbage.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (27 Dec 2022)

brihard said:


> Has ‘moustache ride’ found a way to enter the vernacular for box ticking pin-collection exercises yet, or is that a no-no?


I mean I have one and it's in a box, does that count?  😁


----------



## Navy_Pete (27 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Weird.  I first ware the leather firearms belt on VDQ in 2006, I was a LS.  And it's been on me in NCDs ever since.
> 
> I don't know what to tell ya.  ST(A) was wearing the same belt during WUPs on FRE in 2019.
> 
> That stupid issued one with the faux brass slide buckle is garbage.


I just bought a black leather one with a normal metal buckle (but actual leather, not pleather) but yeah, no idea either. Some people just get something in their head and don't bother reading the actual regs, but plain leather belts are a-okay with NCDs. I think people are more widely aware of that now, but some people still freak out about officers wearing berets with short sleeves, so no idea what some people will get hung up on.

Maybe has gone too far the other way now, with people ignoring safety violations with beards/goatees with SCBAs, but I don't think anyone has bothered me about the leather belt since about 2015 or something (although it was in the dress manual since before I joined in the early 2000s, so not a new rule).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> Some people can’t read, they get all their info from the smoke pit.



I 100% ignored and did not enforce that stupidity.


OldSolduer said:


> It was at one time a very real thing. A former BCWO in Shilo made it his duty to “counsel” soldiers exiting the Canex they were in violation of the dress regs.



If it isn’t in the dress regs and signed by the appropriate level of Command, it doesn’t exist.  

With respect to all CWO/CPOs, almost none of them will ever be in command.


----------



## medicineman (27 Dec 2022)

My favorite one was a CPO1 in Victoria who had a hard on against Army folks that was making up his own regs for us...in particular, wearing of CADPAT day packs with NCD's.  He said the reg said that the ruck/daysack had to match the uniform...I pointed out to him that the regulation actually stated "NON-ISSUE daypacks/rucksacks must of be of conservative colour..."; he also went off on me for wearing CADPAT rank badges on my combats, which at the time were in fact the legal ones (as opposed to high def ones which hadn't yet come on line).  He only did this to Army folks - he seemed to have no issue with fish heads wandering around with pink day sacks in his HQ...which I pointed out rather rudely to both him and the bearer of same.

He didn't like me much.


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> My first CSM was at Sarajevo Airport in 1992.  We got to talking about "stupid stuff in the Army" one day and he told me about what happened when they arrived in Sarajevo as a sort of lesson from when he was a young Private.
> 
> He said their Company Commander wasn't the sharpest knife and the only experience anyone in the Company had was some people had in an area of "operations" was a few had done a "peacekeeping" tour in Cyprus (so basically none).
> 
> ...


I was there. The idea was not to let the locals think we were any kind of threat, no aggressive posture. A 30 rd mag, left pocket, with red guntape sealing it up. End of day, unload, count rounds, and sign the verification sheet that you had all 30 rds. We spent the current defense budget on red tape, literally.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Dec 2022)

medicineman said:


> My favorite one was a CPO1 in Victoria who had a hard on against Army folks that was making up his own regs for us...in particular, wearing of CADPAT day packs with NCD's.  He said the reg said that the ruck/daysack had to match the uniform...I pointed out to him that the regulation actually stated "NON-ISSUE daypacks/rucksacks must of be of conservative colour..."; he also went off on me for wearing CADPAT rank badges on my combats, which at the time were in fact the legal ones (as opposed to high def ones which hadn't yet come on line).  He only did this to Army folks - he seemed to have no issue with fish heads wandering around with pink day sacks in his HQ...which I pointed out rather rudely to both him and the bearer of same.
> 
> He didn't like me much.



Same thing happened in Halifax.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I just bought a black leather one with a normal metal buckle (but actual leather, not pleather) but yeah, no idea either. Some people just get something in their head and don't bother reading the actual regs, but plain leather belts are a-okay with NCDs. I think people are more widely aware of that now, but some people still freak out about officers wearing berets with short sleeves, so no idea what some people will get hung up on.
> 
> Maybe has gone too far the other way now, with people ignoring safety violations with beards/goatees with SCBAs, but I don't think anyone has bothered me about the leather belt since about 2015 or something (although it was in the dress manual since before I joined in the early 2000s, so not a new rule).



My belt is actually more brown now as it's OAF and has some salt on it.  

I don't know any about leather... Can I re stain it you think ?


----------



## Navy_Pete (27 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> My belt is actually more brown now as it's OAF and has some salt on it.
> 
> I don't know any about leather... Can I re stain it you think ?


Probably, but I think that just adds character! I'd just go with it, and then you can bust out the occasional 'my belt has more sea time then you' line as necessary for the new officer/NCM giving you grief on something!


----------



## NavalMoose (27 Dec 2022)

Forgive my ignorance, been out of loop for awhile, but what is a "mustache pin" ?


----------



## FSTO (27 Dec 2022)

NavalMoose said:


> Forgive my ignorance, been out of loop for awhile, but what is a "mustache pin" ?


NWO Vanity Badge. It’s supposed to be the view of a warship with the bone in its teeth as it sails at high speed. But it looks like a 18th Century Hussar’s Moustache.


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Dec 2022)

We have taken to calling it the "MARS stache".


----------



## NavalMoose (27 Dec 2022)

FSTO said:


> NWO Vanity Badge. It’s supposed to be the view of a warship with the bone in its teeth as it sails at high speed. But it looks like a 18th Century Hussar’s Moustache.


Thank you for the info, I was in the navy in the "pre-flair" era...lol


----------



## lenaitch (27 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> My belt is actually more brown now as it's OAF and has some salt on it.
> 
> I don't know any about leather... Can I re stain it you think ?


Leather dye.  Comes in all sorts of colours if you want to be creative (or piss somebody off I suppose):


----------



## Maxman1 (28 Dec 2022)

One Rememberance Day when I had my tunic off, a Corporal more senior than me pulled off my tie clasp and said "not in uniform," even though it is allowed in the dress regs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Dec 2022)

Maxman1 said:


> One Rememberance Day when I had my tunic off, a Corporal more senior than me pulled off my tie clasp and said "not in uniform," even though it is allowed in the dress regs.



Back when I was a Cpl, if another Cpl grabbed anything of mine they would have gotten a smash.  🙂

I’m one of those “old fashioned” types that believes a punch in the face can be an appropriate response to stupidiots when they do stuff like that.


----------



## Navy_Pete (28 Dec 2022)

NavalMoose said:


> Forgive my ignorance, been out of loop for awhile, but what is a "mustache pin" ?


Here's a link to an article with photos; looks like it was done by someone who never saw a ship outside a bathtub toy, is only aware of waves as a concept, and missed the art lessons on perspective.

To get it someone has to get their BWK (ie not the OFP milestone for the board), be posted as an XO, and be posted as a CO. Could be on an MCDV etc, so pretty random. In theory someone who couldn't pass the (NOPQ?) board and never hit OFP could get a bronze one, and someone relieved of duty for whatever reason would still be entitled to wear one. Or maybe not, because it's not in the dress manual or anything else official, so the RCN can make it up as they go.

Overall it's a puzzling mess of a solution to a question almost no one was asking, but we got anyway because it was the pet project of a bored GOFO. I think the resources spent on this would have been better used doing literally nothing.

New Royal Canadian Navy pin marks steps toward command - Pacific Navy News


----------



## FSTO (28 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> a bored GOFO.
> 
> New Royal Canadian Navy pin marks steps toward command - Pacific Navy News


That would be the current CRCN's predecessor. He forced it through before his retirement.


----------



## Navy_Pete (28 Dec 2022)

FSTO said:


> That would be the current CRCN's predecessor. He forced it through before his retirement.


Nice legacy to be a flair wanker. (and was he the predecessor or two removed? Hard to keep track with the GOFO musical chairs in the me too era).

Mistakes


----------



## FSTO (28 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Nice legacy to be a flair wanker. (and was he the predecessor or two removed? Hard to keep track with the GOFO musical chairs in the me too era).
> 
> Mistakes


Art, Craig, Angus in that order.


----------



## Halifax Tar (28 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Here's a link to an article with photos; looks like it was done by someone who never saw a ship outside a bathtub toy, is only aware of waves as a concept, and missed the art lessons on perspective.
> 
> To get it someone has to get their BWK (ie not the OFP milestone for the board), be posted as an XO, and be posted as a CO. Could be on an MCDV etc, so pretty random. In theory someone who couldn't pass the (NOPQ?) board and never hit OFP could get a bronze one, and someone relieved of duty for whatever reason would still be entitled to wear one. Or maybe not, because it's not in the dress manual or anything else official, so the RCN can make it up as they go.
> 
> ...



I thought I payed close attention to the dress committee notes and I don't recall it ever being presented as an article for discussion and processing.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Nice legacy to be a flair wanker. (and was he the predecessor or two removed? Hard to keep track with the GOFO musical chairs in the me too era).
> 
> Mistakes



Uh hmmm...





__ https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10152261864856237&id=61263506236


----------



## FSTO (28 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Uh hmmm...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


TBH, the gold on the RCAF light blue never looked right to my eye. I like the look of it now, but they should have added a belt.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Dec 2022)

FSTO said:


> TBH, the gold on the RCAF light blue never looked right to my eye. I like the look of it now, but they should have added a belt.



I was thinking “this is the only change that happened under his Command”…non-operational dress.

“They will remember me when they pay way more for mess kit!”


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Dec 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Small world.


We were the red headed step children of the family. I finally got my shmancy Gore-Tex snivel kit issued in country. In May.


----------



## Navy_Pete (28 Dec 2022)

FSTO said:


> Art, Craig, Angus in that order.


Thanks, and my initial categorization as a 'flair wanker' was probably unintentionally harsh, as I generally respected him from the minimal encounters I've had with him, and generally heard good things.

Just generally frustrated that a lot of recent CRCNs keep making promising noises about taking care of sailors but continue to drive the op sched at an unsustainable pace and just ignore the downward spiral of crew shortages, poor material state, and crazy op tempo, which are all related and really entirely driven by the operational side of the house. So when they do stupid buttons and bows type things just seems like they are ignoring the giant elephant in the room, and when we straight up told them FRE last year was a best case scenario for that fire and a lot of other ships would have run aground to no actual change (and some things getting worse) I tend to lose sleep and don't really trust the institution anymore (despite previously having high opinion of those now in charge).

At least previously with the 280s/AORs they got downgraded on ops and eventually kept alongside, but now similar things just get shrugs with a box ticking risk assessment at best, or ignored completely.


----------



## FSTO (28 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Thanks, and my initial categorization as a 'flair wanker' was probably unintentionally harsh, as I generally respected him from the minimal encounters I've had with him, and generally heard good things.
> 
> Just generally frustrated that a lot of recent CRCNs keep making promising noises about taking care of sailors but continue to drive the op sched at an unsustainable pace and just ignore the downward spiral of crew shortages, poor material state, and crazy op tempo, which are all related and really entirely driven by the operational side of the house. So when they do stupid buttons and bows type things just seems like they are ignoring the giant elephant in the room, and when we straight up told them FRE last year was a best case scenario for that fire and a lot of other ships would have run aground to no actual change (and some things getting worse) I tend to lose sleep and don't really trust the institution anymore (despite previously having high opinion of those now in charge).
> 
> At least previously with the 280s/AORs they got downgraded on ops and eventually kept alongside, but now similar things just get shrugs with a box ticking risk assessment at best, or ignored completely.


Let me play devils advocate for a bit. As Humphrey Bogart keep reminding us, the RCN is not a service but an environment so CRCN doesn’t have their own Minister to go to say what the navy is or is not capable of doing and then that person sitting at the cabinet table and looking at the PM and FM and telling them that same assessment. Therefore CRCN’s message is filtered by CJOC, VCDS, CDS, and DND DM prior getting to the minister if it gets there at all. CRCN’s only recourse really is to resign which will maybe get one news cycle of coverage before it is forgotten. 

Now I’m not saying that there is nothing the Navy on its own can do mitigate the destruction of the fleet, but there may be immense pressure from above to provide hulls to keep up the facade that Canada matters in world events.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 Dec 2022)

FSTO said:


> Let me play devils advocate for a bit. As Humphrey Bogart keep reminding us, the RCN is not a service but an environment so CRCN doesn’t have their own Minister to go to say what the navy is or is not capable of doing and then that person sitting at the cabinet table and looking at the PM and FM and telling them that same assessment. Therefore CRCN’s message is filtered by CJOC, VCDS, CDS, and DND DM prior getting to the minister if it gets there at all. CRCN’s only recourse really is to resign which will maybe get one news cycle of coverage before it is forgotten.
> 
> Now I’m not saying that there is nothing the Navy on its own can do mitigate the destruction of the fleet, but there may be immense pressure from above to provide hulls to keep up the facade that Canada matters in world events.


Finally, someone understands. CRCN is a staff weinie, just like all the other Environmental Chiefs are staff weinies.  He is not a true Commander of anything and he wouldn't even get an audience with either the PM or FM.  I'd be surprised if either even know who the CRCN is LOL and I jest not!

The sooner "the Navy" learns how to actually play the game both in NDHQ and Ottawa, the better off it will be.  It's been 50ish years and counting though so I'm not holding my breath.

The current GOC only cares that there is a flag present, they don't care what is behind that flag.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Dec 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Ooh, almost forgot. Could only wear the white balaclava if you were wearing mukluks. White hats and black boots was just soooo last year.


Don’t forget the gloves! 😉 




Humphrey Bogart said:


> Finally, someone understands. CRCN is a staff weinie, just like all the other Environmental Chiefs are staff weinies. He is not a true Commander of anything and he wouldn't even get an audience with either the PM or FM. I'd be surprised if either even know who the CRCN is LOL and I jest not!



Ironically that on the light blue side of things, there is a 3* commander, but it’s not CRCAF, but DCOMD NORAD.. 😉


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Don’t forget the gloves! 😉
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was going to mention that the actual Commanders are CJOC Comd, Comd CANSOFCOM and DComd NORAD but I held off 😉


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I was going to mention that the actual Commanders are CJOC Comd, Comd CANSOFCOM and DComd NORAD but I held off 😉


Reminds me of the good ole days…Leslie-Gauthier Thunderdome matches…


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Reminds me of the good ole days…Leslie-Gauthier Thunderdome matches…


I think a big problem the Navy Leadership suffers from is they spend too much time on the coasts.  Victoria and Halifax are small places, the salt air clouds the vision and insular thinking takes hold.

It would do some of them a lot of good to spend some time in the Trenches in Ottawa.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Dec 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I think a big problem the Navy Leadership suffers from is they spend too much time on the coasts.  Victoria and Halifax are small places, the salt air clouds the vision and insular thinking takes hold.
> 
> It would do some of them a lot of good to spend some time in the Trenches in Ottawa.


Or on Lake Superior in November

The lake it is said never gives up her dead

When the gales of November come slashin

Lightfoot - the best poet Canada ever produced.


----------



## Navy_Pete (28 Dec 2022)

FSTO said:


> Let me play devils advocate for a bit. As Humphrey Bogart keep reminding us, the RCN is not a service but an environment so CRCN doesn’t have their own Minister to go to say what the navy is or is not capable of doing and then that person sitting at the cabinet table and looking at the PM and FM and telling them that same assessment. Therefore CRCN’s message is filtered by CJOC, VCDS, CDS, and DND DM prior getting to the minister if it gets there at all. CRCN’s only recourse really is to resign which will maybe get one news cycle of coverage before it is forgotten.
> 
> Now I’m not saying that there is nothing the Navy on its own can do mitigate the destruction of the fleet, but there may be immense pressure from above to provide hulls to keep up the facade that Canada matters in world events.


I'd say there is a lot of entirely self-inflicted within the RCN lines that causing issues before things ever get up to CJOC, VCDS etc.

We previously had a 'come to Jesus' moment where the RCN briefed up to the MND for the 280s, AORs and FELEX CPFs on how things are foxed and what we can still reasonably do; that was entirely RCN driven with MEPM support, and worked pretty well under the restrictions we have now had then.

Now have very similar technical issues and much worse personnel issues, and it's the CRCN office pushing the fleet to do even more with less, while straight up ignoring CAF general safety orders, CDS direction on reconstitution and other things.

The most obvious and glaring example is HMCS Oriole; that's only still alive because some Admiral wants it; no one above it could give a shit about Oriole, and it should have gotten paid off before we dumped a ton of money to bring it up to basic SOLAS standards for stability.

Lots of other obvious examples during COVID, including CHA being scheduled to go on an exercise right up until the 11th hour despite having no rudder, and not being fit to sail even under our very low standards.

Maybe things are filtering out before they get to CRCN, but it's not CJOC pushing the Navy to do random patrols, TRPs with minimum crews, deploying ships not meeting SOLAS, etc; that's entirely the Navy.  And I'm pretty sure if the CDS found out ships weren't following CAF safety orders by allowing beards with SCBA, shit would get sorted pretty quick. It's getting reported in ST exercise messages, so the RCN can't hide behind the skirts of higher commands for things entirely it's own fault and completely within their authority to sort out.

People just need to grow a godamn spine and report things up, and if the executive summary on a major fire investigation says 'the RCN dodged a bullet' that shouldn't get pushed under a carpet.


----------



## dimsum (28 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I don't like to tell folks what to do without being willing to do it myself, so kept my second layer nearby etc, so this just seemed like a normal extension of that, as I would normally suggest to folks they wear a leather belt vice the DEU one. I've seen the FR testing on our NCDs, and makes a huge difference to have the layers on, so makes zero sense to have a belt on their which would turn into a molten burning mess within the same test, and the post fire burns from people having synthetic tshirts etc melt onto them is pretty grim.


Haven't been following this thread in the past while, so played catch-up.

Similarly, some aircrew wear 2-piece flight suits.  Guess what belt they're supposed to wear with it?  The same green (now brown) nylon "cargo strap" belt issued for CADPAT, which would also be a molten burning mess in a fire situation.

I've pointed that out before and folks said "if your belt is melting then there are bigger issues".  I don't know - nylon melting _to 2 layers of clothing from my skin _seems like a pretty big issue to me.

Edit to add:  Looking at @Eye In The Sky 's link, I also think the RCAF GOFO tunics having both sleeve and shoulder rank is stupid.  Folks can figure out what rank you are from the sleeve rings, and the other services have one or the other, not both.  It's not even a "history and heritage" thing because the pre-unification RCAF uniform didn't have the shoulder ranks.


----------



## stoker dave (29 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> deploying ships not meeting SOLAS, etc; ....
> 
> People just need to grow a godamn spine and report things up...


Please allow me to share my perspective as a long-out-of-the-game MARE who has worked as an engineer (usually some type of field work) for some decades.   

First, where I work, everyone has the RIGHT to a safe work environment and everyone has a RIGHT to stop work in unsafe conditions.  This is taken very seriously.   The most junior construction worker can bring an entire construction site to a halt if that worker 'feels' unsafe.   It is the responsibility of the site health and safety (H&S) team, site superintendents and site managers to address any safety concerns - real or imagined.   (If they are imagined safety hazards, the worker will be counseled as to why their fears are misplaced and what is being done to address them.).   There are ZERO negative repercussions for stopping work - indeed, the individual who made the call will be acknowledged and recognized for their initiative and attention to safety.  

Failure to follow H&S regulations WILL result in dismissal, penalties or fines.   Managers who ignore H&S rules can go to jail.   

So this is what I don't understand about what is going on in the Navy.   There must be some law or regulation that applies to service personnel that assures them a safe work environment.   Sure, you can be ordered to storm a machine gun nest but you shouldn't be expected to drive vehicles with no brakes (for example).   

Are there health and safety committees?  H&S audits?  Who is responsible for this?  

If there are SAFETY hazards, they should be promptly and immediately addressed and rectified.    I would fully expect that there are applicable regulations to address this situation.   Can someone shed some light?


----------



## ueo (29 Dec 2022)

FSTO said:


> TBH, the gold on the RCAF light blue never looked right to my eye. I like the look of it now, but they should have added a belt.


Sam Browne?


----------



## FSTO (29 Dec 2022)

ueo said:


> Sam Browne?


No, this:


----------



## dimsum (29 Dec 2022)

FSTO said:


> No, this:


If the tunics are tailored right (belts or not), they look better.


----------



## FSTO (29 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> If the tunics are tailored right (belts or not), they look better.


Tailoring? Why you high falut'in 1%er, you'll take what Logistik Unicorp gives you as is and you'll damn well like it!!!!


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Dec 2022)

FSTO said:


> Tailoring? Why you high falut'in 1%er, you'll take what Logistik Unicorp gives you as is and you'll damn well like it!!!!



Many people don't understand you're supposed to take your stuff from Logistik Unicorp to the tailor shop for final fitting.  

The length of people's DEU pants these days is ridiculous.  Drives me bananas.


----------



## Furniture (29 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Many people don't understand you're supposed to take your stuff from Logistik Unicorp to the tailor shop for final fitting.
> 
> The length of people's DEU pants these days is ridiculous.  Drives me bananas.


I'm not preparing for a flood, so I don't get my pants tailored to suit flood conditions...🤣


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> Similarly, some aircrew wear 2-piece flight suits.  Guess what belt they're supposed to wear with it?  The same green (now brown) nylon "cargo strap" belt issued for CADPAT, which would also be a molten burning mess in a fire situation.
> 
> I've pointed that out before and folks said "if your belt is melting then there are bigger issues".  I don't know - nylon melting _to 2 layers of clothing from my skin _seems like a pretty big issue to me.



People will be too worried that their Magnums, Rockys etc will be melting to their feet to notice their belt first....

😁


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Many people don't understand you're supposed to take your stuff from Logistik Unicorp to the tailor shop for final fitting.
> 
> The length of people's DEU pants these days is ridiculous.  Drives me bananas.


Because Logistiks is totally incapable of finding anything that fits right and has a website that is pretty much useless. Not to mention a lot of their stuff is crap quality.


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Dec 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Because Logistiks is totally incapable of finding anything that fits right and has a website that is pretty much useless. Not to mention a lot of their stuff is crap quality.



I don't debate the quality, it's garbage.  But it's shouldn't fit right.  That's what a tailor is for. 

I don't find the website hard to use...

If you ever bought suit it's the same.  Buying off the shelf with no tailoring is just slovenly.


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Dec 2022)

Furniture said:


> I'm not preparing for a flood, so I don't get my pants tailored to suit flood conditions...🤣



They don't have to be floods but wearing a 34 inseam when one has 30 just makes one look slovenly.


----------



## Furniture (29 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> They don't have to be floods but wearing a 34 inseam when one has 30 just makes one look slovenly.


100% 

I think a lot of people imagine they are taller than they actually are.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I don't debate the quality, it's garbage.  But it's shouldn't fit right.  That's what a tailor is for.
> 
> I don't find the website hard to use...
> 
> If you ever bought suit it's the same.  Buying off the shelf with no tailoring is just slovenly.


I never had to use Logistiks for the army as my service predated it. I do use it for buying Cadet and Officer uniform bits for the Navy League. You can tell they don't really give a crap about us and it's not optimised at all for our needs nor any abilty to customise the site. I get we are a small part of their business.  We pay up front for everything and the volunteer/Cadet don't own the uniform and it will be reissued as required. Since all the money is either donated or raised, we do expect value for money. I used to be able to do bulk officer orders, now I have to order separately for each officer and input all their measurements before it will let me order, then they charge us shipping on each order. If your going to ask for measurements and then send us a tunic that is to small, despite the measurements being accurate, I do have issues with that.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (29 Dec 2022)

Furniture said:


> 100%
> 
> I think a lot of people imagine they are taller than they actually are.



It would also help if the CAF took steps to beat some sense into its members; in that occasional tailoring, polishing, dry cleaning, and maintaining a uniform is a personal responsibility. The Crown provides you with the cloth, it's the member that turns it into a uniform in accordance with the CFDI, Environmental Instructions, and individual Branch/Corps/Regimental instructions.

"I shouldn't have to pay for this... it's the Crown's responsi-"

Ack... but it's YOUR responsibility to not look like a bag of milk in uniform. Personal pride and the odd buck here and there does wonders for that....


----------



## Navy_Pete (29 Dec 2022)

stoker dave said:


> Please allow me to share my perspective as a long-out-of-the-game MARE who has worked as an engineer (usually some type of field work) for some decades.
> 
> First, where I work, everyone has the RIGHT to a safe work environment and everyone has a RIGHT to stop work in unsafe conditions.  This is taken very seriously.   The most junior construction worker can bring an entire construction site to a halt if that worker 'feels' unsafe.   It is the responsibility of the site health and safety (H&S) team, site superintendents and site managers to address any safety concerns - real or imagined.   (If they are imagined safety hazards, the worker will be counseled as to why their fears are misplaced and what is being done to address them.).   There are ZERO negative repercussions for stopping work - indeed, the individual who made the call will be acknowledged and recognized for their initiative and attention to safety.
> 
> ...


I agree with all of that should be happening, but reality is maybe risk assessments at best. I have no idea if they are still doing the H&S audits but the Formation Safety and Environment folks have this info but aren't doing anything with it.

Pretty good reason things on AOPs keep getting leaked to the press.

The beard/goatee with SCBA on is weird, and I think if anyone does get hurt as a result a whole bunch of someones should be charged for it, but also no idea if that person would get a VAC coverage as they weren't wearing PPE correctly.

The idiots that are trying to play it off as a dress regs thing internally should also be shot; if you want to give someone an exemption to grow a beard cool; but means they can't be on duty watch and have limited roles on the ship for DC (so if you aren't sailing with full complement is a big problem, and the min crew numbers require everyone).


----------



## Stoker (29 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I agree with all of that should be happening, but reality is maybe risk assessments at best. I have no idea if they are still doing the H&S audits but the Formation Safety and Environment folks have this info but aren't doing anything with it.
> 
> Pretty good reason things on AOPs keep getting leaked to the press.
> 
> ...


Yes they are doing health and safety audits, in fact I have one coming up. Pmed comes in periodically to check water test logs as well. We also have NETE coming in to do safety audits along with the fire hall.

Before the new dress regs there was a number of people claiming to follow the Norse religion found a sympathetic padre and now was allowed beards. Did not affect their status of duty watch or DC.

We were deployed when the new dress regulations came in, beards came up. We were told by the formation chief that small Goatees were allowed. Didn't sound right to me as everyone is different and what exactly constitutes a small goatee. Put the question to STA and they wouldn't touch it with a 10 ft pole. I think everyone is so afraid of these dress regulations they don't want to be the person to rock the boat and possibly be called out.


----------



## Navy_Pete (29 Dec 2022)

Stoker said:


> Yes they are doing health and safety audits, in fact I have one coming up. Pmed comes in periodically to check water test logs as well. We also have NETE coming in to do safety audits along with the fire hall.
> 
> Before the new dress regs there was a number of people claiming to follow the Norse religion found a sympathetic padre and now was allowed beards. Did not affect their status of duty watch or DC.
> 
> We were deployed when the new dress regulations came in, beards came up. We were told by the formation chief that small Goatees were allowed. Didn't sound right to me as everyone is different and what exactly constitutes a small goatee. Put the question to STA and they wouldn't touch it with a 10 ft pole. I think everyone is so afraid of these dress regulations they don't want to be the person to rock the boat and possibly be called out.


Yup, that's all wrong. All falls under the 'Respiratory Protection Program' RPP for the CAF, which is really clear that you need to be clean shaven. Small goatees, long sideburns etc aren't allowed. Do whatever they want for wannabe vikings, but they shouldn't be on duty as they need to be able to fire fight.

That is all run for the CAF by the fire marshall and falls under ADM(IE) so any deviations have to be approved at the VCDS level with risk accepted by the CDS. The RPP is issued by the CDS. The RCN doesn't have authority to not follow it.

Anyone saying otherwise doesn't have the authority, and it's a legal order, so not really sure why it's so difficult to follow. Last I checked it was illegal to give orders contravening orders from higher authority.


----------



## Rd651 (29 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Yup, that's all wrong. All falls under the 'Respiratory Protection Program' RPP for the CAF, which is really clear that you need to be clean shaven. Small goatees, long sideburns etc aren't allowed. Do whatever they want for wannabe vikings, but they shouldn't be on duty as they need to be able to fire fight.
> 
> That is all run for the CAF by the fire marshall and falls under ADM(IE) so any deviations have to be approved at the VCDS level with risk accepted by the CDS. The RPP is issued by the CDS. The RCN doesn't have authority to not follow it.
> 
> Anyone saying otherwise doesn't have the authority, and it's a legal order, so not really sure why it's so difficult to follow. Last I checked it was illegal to give orders contravening orders from higher authority.


100% Correct !!


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Dec 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> It would also help if the CAF took steps to beat some sense into its members; in that occasional tailoring, polishing, dry cleaning, and maintaining a uniform is a personal responsibility. The Crown provides you with the cloth, it's the member that turns it into a uniform in accordance with the CFDI, Environmental Instructions, and individual Branch/Corps/Regimental instructions.
> 
> "I shouldn't have to pay for this... it's the Crown's responsi-"
> 
> Ack... but it's YOUR responsibility to not look like a bag of milk in uniform. Personal pride and the odd buck here and there does wonders for that....


OH you old fogie!!! How dare you insist the troops have pride in their uniforms. They have bigger things to worry about like hair colour, should men wear skirts, nail polish colours etc  

It was called Basic Training where a  MCpl or Sergeant- like Archie Rafters of The RCR -taught you how to iron etc and take pride in your appearance. And do drill. And land nav etc etc. BUT I guess the toxic masculinity of it all.....

And hem your damn pants ffs.

And another thing - stop with the Norse religion bullshit. Shave the effing beard off if your job demands you be clean shaven. Fuck.


----------



## Stoker (29 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Yup, that's all wrong. All falls under the 'Respiratory Protection Program' RPP for the CAF, which is really clear that you need to be clean shaven. Small goatees, long sideburns etc aren't allowed. Do whatever they want for wannabe vikings, but they shouldn't be on duty as they need to be able to fire fight.
> 
> That is all run for the CAF by the fire marshall and falls under ADM(IE) so any deviations have to be approved at the VCDS level with risk accepted by the CDS. The RPP is issued by the CDS. The RCN doesn't have authority to not follow it.
> 
> Anyone saying otherwise doesn't have the authority, and it's a legal order, so not really sure why it's so difficult to follow. Last I checked it was illegal to give orders contravening orders from higher authority.


Yes fully aware about RPP and the implications of not having a good seal. It boggles my mind that after many years of enforcing the policy on ships that's its been thrown out.  Just a cursory look at different ships on social media it appears many ships are also allowing full on beards.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> It was actually an update to the IMO rules; you can still do it 12 miles out (or within 3 miles if it's ground up and you aren't in a special area).
> 
> Meanwhile lobsters off Halifax still feed off raw sewage that's only been screened. 🤷‍♂️
> 
> https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/OurWork/Environment/Documents/Simplified overview of the discharge provisions of the revised MARPOL Annex V.pdf


I'm  aware, was just me being sarcastic 


Navy_Pete said:


> Yup, that's all wrong. All falls under the 'Respiratory Protection Program' RPP for the CAF, which is really clear that you need to be clean shaven. Small goatees, long sideburns etc aren't allowed. Do whatever they want for wannabe vikings, but they shouldn't be on duty as they need to be able to fire fight.
> 
> That is all run for the CAF by the fire marshall and falls under ADM(IE) so any deviations have to be approved at the VCDS level with risk accepted by the CDS. *The RPP is issued by the CDS. The RCN doesn't have authority to not follow it.*
> 
> Anyone saying otherwise doesn't have the authority, and it's a legal order, so not really sure why it's so difficult to follow. Last I checked it was illegal to give orders contravening orders from higher authority.


There's the Navy thinking they are their own service again 🤣

Shocked Pikachu Face:


----------



## Rd651 (29 Dec 2022)

Stoker said:


> Yes fully aware about RPP and the implications of not having a good seal. It boggles my mind that after many years of enforcing the policy on ships that's its been thrown out.  Just a cursory look at different ships on social media it appears many ships are also allowing full on beards.


Maybe, just maybe....No more Firefighters and Hull Techs to enforce (explain) said policy...

MY 2 cents..


----------



## Furniture (29 Dec 2022)

Rd651 said:


> Maybe, just maybe....No more Firefighters and Hull Techs to enforce (explain) said policy...
> 
> MY 2 cents..


Might be the case.  Fire fighters weren't navy, so their career progression didn't depend on the navy's approval. 

It's a lot easier to raise a fuss when you're not killing your career.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (29 Dec 2022)

Except that the new Dress Regs are also an order issued by the CDS. So which one do you follow, and which one overides the other, and who decides?

Where I come from we use to call that a clusterfuck. And it's not found only in the military: The company I work for right now has this confusing thing where Human Ressources makes it clear that no use of a personnal cell phone will be tolerated during working hours (or else, you are written up), while the supply side of the house requires you to take pictures of transport breakage of items with your phone to send them before any replacement is authorised, because IT has locked down all the USB ports for security reason and will not release them for our previously issued cameras. Go figure!


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Dec 2022)

The problem is a lack of enforcement of standards.  

And a weak corps of PO2s to CPO1s that are scared to be vocal about transgressions.  

The bearded Vikings I saw all belonged to NTOG.  The members of ships coy had handle bars.  I haven't seen anyone who is in a position to wear an SCBA have a full beard.


----------



## Navy_Pete (29 Dec 2022)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Except that the new Dress Regs are also an order issued by the CDS. So which one do you follow, and which one overides the other, and who decides?
> 
> Where I come from we use to call that a clusterfuck. And it's not found only in the military: The company I work for right now has this confusing thing where Human Ressources makes it clear that no use of a personnal cell phone will be tolerated during working hours (or else, you are written up), while the supply side of the house requires you to take pictures of transport breakage of items with your phone to send them before any replacement is authorised, because IT has locked down all the USB ports for security reason and will not release them for our previously issued cameras. Go figure!


The dress regs don't override safety/operational requirements, and specifically say those take precedence. The RPP is a safety requirement (and falls under the CAF safety program). Pretty simple; anyone that needs to do firefighting needs to be clean shaven along the sealing face.

It's pretty easy if anyone is confused to simply ask; every base has RPP reps and a lead (usually the base fire department). There is also a RCN fire safety lead, and LCMM for the SCBA that would tell them the same. Everytime they've asked for over a decade this has been explained.

Similarly religious accomodations don't override safety/operational requirements.

@Halifax Tar it's been observed a few times by folks coming to DC schools for fit tests, during ST exercises, and all over ship's social media posts. Don't really care about NTOG, but if they are on deployed CPFs there should be enough core crew (which really is 1-2 ships).

The problem is the CPFs with min crew, AOPs, MCDVs and Orcas which all have way too small of a team to allow a lot of non-DC folks, and alongside with 6 person duty watches you don't have room for non-DC pers either. So basically 95% of the fleet has no float.

This is all well known and should be enforced, but no one wants to touch it. We have a a few major events a year, and minor fires every month, plus multiple near misses every month, so really just a matter of time before this goes from a theoretical risk to someone getting hurt, because people won't just enforce the actual regs.


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> it's been observed a few times by folks coming to DC schools for fit tests, during ST exercises, and all over ship's social media posts. Don't really care about NTOG, but if they are on deployed CPFs there should be enough core crew (which really is 1-2 ships).
> 
> The problem is the CPFs with min crew, AOPs, MCDVs and Orcas which all have way too small of a team to allow a lot of non-DC folks, and alongside with 6 person duty watches you don't have room for non-DC pers either. So basically 95% of the fleet has no float.
> 
> This is all well known and should be enforced, but no one wants to touch it. We have a a few major events a year, and minor fires every month, plus multiple near misses every month, so really just a matter of time before this goes from a theoretical risk to someone getting hurt, because people won't just enforce the actual regs.



I haven't seen the full beards people are going on about is all I'm saying.  I follow the social media as well.  I saw a Rabbi with one, something tells me he won't be dauning an SCAB in SHTF scenario.  That dood will be cleansing souls.

I'm going back to sea in the summer.  I'll let you know what I see.


----------



## Navy_Pete (29 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I haven't seen the full beards people are going on about is all I'm saying.  I follow the social media as well.  I saw a Rabbi with one, something tells me he won't be dauning an SCAB in SHTF scenario.  That dood will be cleansing souls.


Sure, but even goatees etc are an issue. One of the ST exercises had folks from adjacent ships showing up with goatees in bunker gear.

Seems to be more common on the west coast, and more widespread in non-combatants, but they have so few watertight sections it's actually worse in some respects, and they need even better air management.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I haven't seen the full beards people are going on about is all I'm saying.  I follow the social media as well.  I saw a Rabbi with one, something tells me he won't be dauning an SCAB in SHTF scenario.  That dood will be cleansing souls.


This whole Non-DC & DC designated pers reminds me of that scene from We Were Soldiers when the reporter tries to tell the Gunny he is a non-combatant LOL






"AIN'T NO SUCH THING TODAY BOY!"


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Dec 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> It would also help if the CAF took steps to beat some sense into its members; in that occasional tailoring, polishing, dry cleaning, and maintaining a uniform is a personal responsibility. The Crown provides you with the cloth, it's the member that turns it into a uniform in accordance with the CFDI, Environmental Instructions, and individual Branch/Corps/Regimental instructions.
> 
> "I shouldn't have to pay for this... it's the Crown's responsi-"
> 
> Ack... but it's YOUR responsibility to not look like a bag of milk in uniform. Personal pride and the odd buck here and there does wonders for that....



Members should not have to pay for anything related to their uniforms unless it is optional.  

Placing that expectation on your troops is bullshit so I hope you don’t.  They should be using every dollar they have to their own benefit. 

Eg - base tailor won’t take in the ridiculously large LS and SS DEU shirts except for GOFOs.  The troops should not have to or be expected to pay for that out of pocket.  

I’ll decide what I do/do not pay for out of my disposable income for ceremonial or service dress; I already have to buy Sqn patches etc for my op dress.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (29 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Members *should not* have to pay for anything related to their uniforms unless it is optional.



You know as well as I do that should, shouldn't and what actually happens are all different things. 



> Placing that expectation on your troops is bullshit so I hope you don’t.  They should be using every dollar they have to their own benefit.



I put the expectation that my troops will be well turned out and properly dressed for what the Crown asks them to do. How they come to that conclusion is a personal responsibility. You need a new beret because yours looks like ass? Cool. Order a new one on Logistik and get a badge put on it. Oh you fucked that off and didn't get one for the parade we have known about for 2 months? Looks like you're off to the CANEX to pay the Stupidity Tax. Just like I have had to in the past. 



> Eg - base tailor won’t take in the ridiculously large LS and SS DEU shirts except for GOFOs.  The troops should not have to or be expected to pay for that out of pocket.



I am in full agreement that the Base Tailoring model is ridiculous. All or none. That said, I won't nit pick with my troops on that kind of stuff, but like I said above: piss poor planning on your part doesn't change the fact you're not properly turned out. Tailoring is something to put into your time appreciation.

Its the same thing with dudes playing Tunic roulette right before Remembrance Day; sort your shit out within the timelines available and then you don't have to pay the Stupid Tax.



> I’ll decide what I do/do not pay for out of my disposable income for ceremonial or service dress; I already have to buy Sqn patches etc for my op dress.



You do you. I paid more out of pocket in 3 years working civvy side than I have in 16 years in uniform. The CAF is one of the few employers that provide all manner of equipment for your to do your job. Taking personal pride in your appearance and kit maintenence isn't a CAF responsibility, but a personal one. The CAF enforces the requirement.

Next thing we know there will be demands for Kiwi and Brasso to be LPOed by the QM...


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Members should not have to pay for anything related to their uniforms unless it is optional.
> 
> Placing that expectation on your troops is bullshit so I hope you don’t.  They should be using every dollar they have to their own benefit.
> 
> ...



I dunno. We should be expected to maintain the uniforms.  If that means dry cleaning or what you pay in power and water home so be it.  That's part of the job.   Most places make you pay for uniforms.  Think of the base tailor like public health care.  It's free but its slow, going private will cost but it will be quicker. 

As for tailoring, those are local contracts set up by your BSup organization.  Having a chat with them might get that changed for future contracts.  I to think it's stupid that GOFOs get something for free that the peasantry has to pay for.

As far as I know any DEU item is up for tailoring in Halifax.  Operational kit is a whole other ball of wax. I haven't seen an exclusivity for GOFOs.


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Sure, but even goatees etc are an issue. One of the ST exercises had folks from adjacent ships showing up with goatees in bunker gear.
> 
> Seems to be more common on the west coast, and more widespread in non-combatants, but they have so few watertight sections it's actually worse in some respects, and they need even better air management.



Like I said I'm going back to sea this summer, I will be shocked if I see beards on the crew.


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Like I said I'm going back to sea this summer, I will be shocked if I see beards on the crew.



A number of my sailors have full or partial beards, but all of them know, and are so briefed by the Coxn that when they go to sea, the beard comes off.


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Dec 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> OH you old fogie!!!


I apologize for this - I may have spelt "fogie" incorrectly. It is spelled "fogey".


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Dec 2022)

ModlrMike said:


> A number of my sailors have full or partial beards, but all of them know, and are so briefed by the Coxn that when they go to sea, the beard comes off.



Are you referencing NRDs ?   I only ask as your profile says you've been in HMCS Chippawa since 2010.


----------



## lenaitch (29 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Many people don't understand you're supposed to take your stuff from Logistik Unicorp to the tailor shop for final fitting.
> 
> The length of people's DEU pants these days is ridiculous.  Drives me bananas.


It must be something they learn in tailoring university.  OPP uniforms (which as far as I know have no relationship with Logistik) are fitted so that there is several inches of material puddled around your feet.  It's one thing on the general service (patrol) uniform to be a bit long since a lot of time is spent sitting, but another for the dress (long tunic) order.

I always felt the long tunic without a belt looks unfinished, but that's just what I'm used to.  I still miss the Sam Browne with the long tunic.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Dec 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> You know as well as I do that should, shouldn't and what actually happens are all different things.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 No arguments on the putting effort into maintaining a standard; that includes having proper fitting items that are provided at no cost including delivery.

Kiwi - the updated version of 264 is void of the wording “footwear shall be polished”.   No need for kiwi anymore.  🙂


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I dunno. We should be expected to maintain the uniforms.  If that means dry cleaning or what you pay in power and water home so be it.  That's part of the job.   Most places make you pay for uniforms.  Think of the base tailor like public health care.  It's free but its slow, going private will cost but it will be quicker.



100%, and the clothing upkeep allowance for stuff like dry cleaning was absorbed into our pay IIRC, years ago.

No sympathy for mbrs in ill fitting DEU tunic and pants - unless they can’t them in their size which has been a problem lately.



Halifax Tar said:


> As for tailoring, those are local contracts set up by your BSup organization.  Having a chat with them might get that changed for future contracts.  I to think it's stupid that GOFOs get something for free that the peasantry has to pay for.



I won’t pay it, even if my shirt looks like a light blue mod tent section.  



Halifax Tar said:


> As far as I know any DEU item is up for tailoring in Halifax.  Operational kit is a whole other ball of wax. I haven't seen an exclusivity for GOFOs.



I remember that being discussed here; might it be in the SAM somewhere?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Dec 2022)

Found this:

Post in thread 'Tailoring... time's up?'
Tailoring... time's up?

3-13K-012. Alterations and repairs - Distinctive Environmental Uniform (DEU)
31. Alterations to new clothing shall be completed at public expense for all ranks on initial issue and for replacement issue of authorized DEU items of clothing. Shirts cannot be altered at public expense. Exceptions can be authorized by the supply officer or clothing supervisor, including alterations to CF shirts. If an individual requires alterations beyond what is listed at para 35, they must provide substantiation in writing (email) to the Sup O or clothing supervisor. Alterations to CF shirts, although not restricted to this group, would normally be allowed for CF personnel holding senior appointments.


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Dec 2022)

lenaitch said:


> It must be something they learn in tailoring university.  OPP uniforms (which as far as I know have no relationship with Logistik) are fitted so that there is several inches of material puddled around your feet.  It's one thing on the general service (patrol) uniform to be a bit long since a lot of time is spent sitting, but another for the dress (long tunic) order.
> 
> I always felt the long tunic without a belt looks unfinished, but that's just what I'm used to.  I still miss the Sam Browne with the long tunic.



People don't get a fitting before ordering.  Even though that's available.   In Halifax we have one of each size for you try on.  And they are rotated out every so often. 

But people just order a size they need and run with it.  Instead of getting it and then going to the tailor shop for a final fitting. 



Eye In The Sky said:


> 100%, and the clothing upkeep allowance for stuff like dry cleaning was absorbed into our pay IIRC, years ago.
> 
> No sympathy for mbrs in ill fitting DEU tunic and pants - unless they can’t them in their size which has been a problem lately.
> 
> ...



I have my work terminal at home I will look into it tm. 

But they are local contracts.  The stipulations of which are established by the Contracting Authority (CA).


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Found this:
> 
> Post in thread 'Tailoring... time's up?'
> Tailoring... time's up?
> ...



Welp there ya go.  That doesn't seem right does it ?

I just read it too.


----------



## ff149 (29 Dec 2022)

I was a firefighter posted to the ships for a time. Every time we did fit testing we'd have at least one person who would give some issue about beards or such. They would try to get us to fit test them with the beard, not understanding that we can't. It was against the RPP. 

I've also had an officer try and tell me we couldn't refuse an order even when it blatantly broke every safety rule I'd ever heard of. One quick chat with the EO and that was the end of that. He was told in no uncertain terms that he couldn't order people to do what he wanted us to do.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I dunno. We should be expected to maintain the uniforms.  If that means dry cleaning or what you pay in power and water home so be it.  That's part of the job.   Most places make you pay for uniforms.  *Think of the base tailor like public health care.  It's free but its slow, going private will cost but it will be quicker.*
> 
> As for tailoring, those are local contracts set up by your BSup organization.  Having a chat with them might get that changed for future contracts.  I to think it's stupid that GOFOs get something for free that the peasantry has to pay for.
> 
> As far as I know any DEU item is up for tailoring in Halifax.  Operational kit is a whole other ball of wax. I haven't seen an exclusivity for GOFOs.


This is basically it, the CAF will give you the service, it will just suck.  You can chose to use it or spend your own money to make your life a little better LOL.



ff149 said:


> I was a firefighter posted to the ships for a time. Every time we did fit testing we'd have at least one person who would give some issue about beards or such. They would try to get us to fit test them with the beard, not understanding that we can't. It was against the RPP.
> 
> I've also had an officer try and tell me we couldn't refuse an order even when it blatantly broke every safety rule I'd ever heard of. One quick chat with the EO and that was the end of that. He was told in no uncertain terms that he couldn't order people to do what he wanted us to do.


Did you explain to them what an illegal order was?  LOL


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Are you referencing NRDs ?   I only ask as your profile says you've been in HMCS Chippawa since 2010.


Yes.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> Similarly, some aircrew wear 2-piece flight suits. Guess what belt they're supposed to wear with it? The same green (now brown) nylon "cargo strap" belt issued for CADPAT, which would also be a molten burning mess in a fire situation.





Eye In The Sky said:


> People will be too worried that their Magnums, Rockys etc will be melting to their feet to notice their belt first....
> 
> 😁



…just the rest of the AF not listening to TH…again.  TH Sqns’ ALSE shops have had FR belting for the 2-pc suits for…decades, and regularly passed the point on to other communities that were often two busy about cracking jokes about how crappy TH’s 2-pc suits looked.  In the initial years it was procured via LPO, but later I assumed it had been out into the system.  Perhaps my assumption was incorrect.  Still something worth following up with…it existed and should be used for all the 2-piece suits.


----------



## Zoomie (31 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> …just the rest of the AF not listening to TH…again.  TH Sqns’ ALSE shops have had FR belting for the 2-pc suits for…decades, and regularly passed the point on to other communities that were often two busy about cracking jokes about how crappy TH’s 2-pc suits looked.  In the initial years it was procured via LPO, but later I assumed it had been out into the system.  Perhaps my assumption was incorrect.  Still something worth following up with…it existed and should be used for all the 2-piece suits.


G2G - do you have a NSN or anything.   As Wing ALSEO, I am interested to see what our supply can do for our two piece crews. 

Separate topic - new high viz ranks for RCAF.  Scuttlebutt from CWO network is that zoom suits will simply just use DEU rank slip ons- any FR concerns about those beauties on your shoulders?


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 Dec 2022)

Zoomie said:


> G2G - do you have a NSN or anything.   As Wing ALSEO, I am interested to see what our supply can do for our two piece crews.
> 
> Separate topic - new high viz ranks for RCAF.  Scuttlebutt from CWO network is that zoom suits will simply just use DEU rank slip ons- any FR concerns about those beauties on your shoulders?


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Dec 2022)

Zoomie said:


> G2G - do you have a NSN or anything.   As Wing ALSEO, I am interested to see what our supply can do for our two piece crews.
> 
> Separate topic - new high viz ranks for RCAF.  Scuttlebutt from CWO network is that zoom suits will simply just use DEU rank slip ons- any FR concerns about those beauties on your shoulders?


Zoomie, let me see if I can get it for you.  In the mean time, I hope the ALSE network can work the slip-on issue.  As a past ALSEO/GALSEO/WALSEO I know it seemed like an uphill battle to get leadership to pay attention to/respect avn life-support issues, particularly anything dealing with fire retardancy…I was unit ALSEO when the Stinger 25 crash happened…even then, the larger AF was like molasses to get anything done. Then BGen Ray Henault supported the FR issue, it was under his command as Comd 10 TAG that we started getting the FR gear associated with the 2-pc suit.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Dec 2022)

Zoomie said:


> G2G - do you have a NSN or anything.   As Wing ALSEO, I am interested to see what our supply can do for our two piece crews.



It should be on the updated SOIs the Div sent out last July, no? (I’d look but my DVPNI is 2 hours away).



Zoomie said:


> Separate topic - new high viz ranks for RCAF.  Scuttlebutt from CWO network is that zoom suits will simply just use DEU rank slip ons- any FR concerns about those beauties on your shoulders?



SAR Techs have been wearing them for some time.  

Separate note, this was briefed by the WCWO at a Snr NCM townhall in late Nov.  I asked it Clothing Stores was ready with 6 x sets of DEU rank for each flyer as they are sewn on to flying clothing.   The Clothing Stores Supr was present and said “definitely not!”. 

That issue was supposed to go back up to the DCWO; so I’m hopeful this plan is on pause until sufficient stock is delivered to the Wings.


----------



## ueo (31 Dec 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> You know as well as I do that should, shouldn't and what actually happens are all different things.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Way back when Brasso wa
s supplied in quart or larger containers, shoe polish was issued as well. Whats the prob?


----------



## Furniture (31 Dec 2022)

ueo said:


> Way back when Brasso wa
> s supplied in quart or larger containers, shoe polish was issued as well. Whats the prob?


The problem stems from the expectations not changing, while the CAF keeps scaling back services and resources.


----------



## Halifax Tar (31 Dec 2022)

ueo said:


> Way back when Brasso wa
> s supplied in quart or larger containers, shoe polish was issued as well. Whats the prob?



When did we issue boot polish ?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (31 Dec 2022)

We never did ... that I know of. We were issued with the silicone to waterproof our sea boots (that were NOT to be polished, notwithstanding the Army idiots who insisted we spit polish them during JLC and ruined perfectly good sea boots).

But shoe/boot polishing was always one of those regs that was abused by alleged "authorities" on dress regs and possibly led to too much grief. The regs quite simply called on shoes to be "clean and polished". That is also the business attire standard of the day for civilian. And if, as a civilian who wished to look sharp, you went to one of those shoe shine booth in the business district and treated yourself to a "high" shine, I can guarantee that you did not come out of there with anything even closely resembling a "spit-shine". The insistence of RSM's, Coxn's and other assorted martinets that we were required at all time to have a spit shine instead of  just keeping shoes clean and applying shoe polish and buffing only to a clean shine was always a distortion of the reg. It may have been fine for training purposes during general military courses and if you were on a public parading party, but not required for day to day wear.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> When did we issue boot polish ?



The army CWWBs came with the tins of boot paste.  I still use it on my Bates LPO CWWBs.









						NEW CANADIAN FORCES EMU BLACK BOOT PASTE LOW GLOSS ( CANADA ARMY )  | eBay
					

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for NEW CANADIAN FORCES EMU BLACK BOOT PASTE LOW GLOSS ( CANADA ARMY ) at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!



					www.ebay.ca


----------



## RangerRay (31 Dec 2022)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> We never did ... that I know of. We were issued with the silicone to waterproof our sea boots (that were NOT to be polished, notwithstanding the Army idiots who insisted we spit polish them during JLC and ruined perfectly good sea boots).
> 
> But shoe/boot polishing was always one of those regs that was abused by alleged "authorities" on dress regs and possibly led to too much grief. The regs quite simply called on shoes to be "clean and polished". That is also the business attire standard of the day for civilian. And if, as a civilian who wished to look sharp, you went to one of those shoe shine booth in the business district and treated yourself to a "high" shine, I can guarantee that you did not come out of there with anything even closely resembling a "spit-shine". The insistence of RSM's, Coxn's and other assorted martinets that we were required at all time to have a spit shine instead of  just keeping shoes clean and applying shoe polish and buffing only to a clean shine was always a distortion of the reg. It may have been fine for training purposes during general military courses and if you were on a public parading party, but not required for day to day wear.


Back in the 90’s, I was shocked to learn that combat boots were to be “black and clean” and we were only to use the boot blackener issued (I happened to get a jug of it when I joined).  Of course, when I started following those regs, I got a blast of shit and told to brush shine the boots with Kiwi, even after I showed my CoC the reg.   🤦‍♂️


----------



## Halifax Tar (31 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> The army CWWBs came with the tins of boot paste.  I still use it on my Bates LPO CWWBs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's what I thought.  It's not really a polish though is it ?  That was more of a treatment and blackner I thought.  

No one put that on their parade boots I hope.


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Dec 2022)

Aside:



> This whole Non-DC & DC designated pers reminds me of that scene from We Were Soldiers when the reporter tries to tell the Gunny he is a non-combatant LOL



Joe Galloway awarded a Bronze Star Medal with the "V" device in 1998 for having carried a badly wounded man to safety while he was under very heavy enemy fire in 1965,









						Joseph L. Galloway - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




On May 1, 1998, Galloway was decorated with the Bronze Star with "V" device.[1] The medal was in recognition of his heroism on November 15, 1965, during the Battle of Ia Drang,[2] the first major battle by U.S. and North Vietnamese troops in the Vietnam War. Galloway was present as a journalist. During the fighting, he risked his own safety to assist wounded soldiers. His actions are depicted in the film _We Were Soldiers_ in which he is portrayed by actor Barry Pepper. He is the only civilian to receive the Bronze Star for combat valor for heroism in the Vietnam War from the U.S. Army


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Dec 2022)

Minus allowing Permanent residents to apply, has our recruiting numbers seen a marked increase since dropping the new dress regs?


----------



## CBH99 (31 Dec 2022)

Rifleman62 said:


> Aside:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't mean to derail...but why does it take so long for some people to be recognized for their actions, such as this?

I'm glad the man was finally recognized for what he did.


But why did it take so long?  I've seen this with a few others, who are awarded a medal a decade or two after the fact...


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Dec 2022)

*Private Jess Larochelle ?*


----------



## Navy_Pete (31 Dec 2022)

ModlrMike said:


> A number of my sailors have full or partial beards, but all of them know, and are so briefed by the Coxn that when they go to sea, the beard comes off.


That's how it should be; unless someone has a shore posting at a DC school or somewhere they need to wear an SCBA (or something else under the RPP) there isn't any reason not to. When they go to ships there is a legitimate safety/operational reason to require people to be clean shaven, and there is no religious/medical exemption to that.

Why that's not being enforced on some ships I have no idea, other than some people are stupid.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Dec 2022)

Rifleman62 said:


> *Private Jess Larochelle ?*


Not awarding Larochelle the Victoria Cross is an act of cowardice IMO.

The guy was hit with a rocket then woke up to being blinded in one eye, deaf in one ear, had a broken back, and besides 2 of his dead brothers. The OPs C6 was damaged so he grabbed 15 M72 and started launching them at the 20 attackers, covering the company's flank. Saved a lot of lives.


----------



## medicineman (31 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Why that's not being enforced on some ships I have no idea, other than some people are stupid.


They're careerist wusses that are more concerned about crewing the boat/boat target and getting grievances than doing what's right?


----------



## medicineman (31 Dec 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Not awarding Larochelle the Victoria Cross is an act of cowardice IMO.
> 
> The guy was hit with a rocket then woke up to being blinded in one eye, deaf in one ear, had a broken back, and besides 2 of his dead brothers. The OPs C6 was damaged so he grabbed 15 M72 and started launching them at the 20 attackers, covering the company's flank. Saved a lot of lives.


Would mean the GoC admitting that the GWoT was in fact a war then...


----------



## Navy_Pete (31 Dec 2022)

medicineman said:


> They're careerist wusses that are more concerned about crewing the boat/boat target and getting grievances than doing what's right?


🤷‍♂️ 

I don't know why they would be, they wouldn't even deal with the grievance.

It would be nice if the Formation Safety and Environment folks would do their actual job though.


----------



## stoker dave (31 Dec 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> It would be nice if the Formation Safety and Environment folks would do their actual job though.



I earlier wrote a post about how safety management works in industry. 

As I think more about this, I am realizing that DND is decades behind industry in developing and implementing a 'safety culture'.   I understand that DND is an organization whose job is (amongst other things) to inflict violence.  So worrying about some little safety problem becomes minor compared to getting shot or blown up.   

But that's not right (IMHO).   You have to worry about safety all the time except under extreme and very unusual circumstances ( like immediate life saving and getting shot / blown up).   Here is an example of how safety culture works at my workplace, a heavy civil construction site with LOTS of site hazards:


Safety training is mandatory and continuous.
Violation of safety procedures gets you immediately kicked off site and possibly fired.
The site safety officer reports to the project manager.  He / she is everywhere always watching for safety hazards and stepping in where appropriate (education and awareness are his / her primary tools).  There may be many safety staff on a big site.
Every meeting starts with a safety moment to discuss a current safety hazard.
Every work day starts with a safety briefing.
Every day workers document what safety hazards they may encounter that day and how they will mitigate those hazards (they carry a little card in their pocket).   Anyone at any time can be challenged to produce their card to show they have completed it accurately for the task they are doing.  It must be updated as tasks change.
There is a method for identifying and reporting safety hazards.  Every month a draw is made of those reports and the winner gets a prize (so there is motivation to identify safety issues).   The project manager tracks these reports to make sure they are addressed.
The 'chain of command' is held responsible if their is a safety incident.
The safety officer reports weekly on hazards, accident statistics, accidents, near misses, etc.
There is always a budget for safety items.
Every worker knows they have the right to a safe workplace and has the right to refuse unsafe work with zero negative repercussions. .
Every worker has the authority to order work to be stopped for any reason with zero negative repercussions.


That's just off the top of my head.   I am doing this to illustrate what I believe is a fundamental cultural difference.


----------



## dimsum (31 Dec 2022)

stoker dave said:


> I earlier wrote a post about how safety management works in industry.
> 
> As I think more about this, I am realizing that DND is decades behind industry in developing and implementing a 'safety culture'.   I understand that DND is an organization whose job is (amongst other things) to inflict violence.  So worrying about some little safety problem becomes minor compared to getting shot or blown up.
> 
> ...


I think that the Flight Safety culture in the RCAF is the closest to what you speak of.

But then again, dragging us back to the topic title, we'd also have non-flammable clothing for Techs instead of the current CADPAT.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Dec 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Minus allowing Permanent residents to apply, has our recruiting numbers seen a marked increase since dropping the new dress regs?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> That's what I thought.  It's not really a polish though is it ?  That was more of a treatment and blackner I thought.



I like it better than policy on “work” boots.  



Halifax Tar said:


> No one put that on their parade boots I hope.



Couldn’t look any worse than most of them do now that we issue those incredibly poor ankle boots.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Dec 2022)

dimsum said:


> I think that the Flight Safety culture in the RCAF is the closest to what you speak of.
> 
> But then again, dragging us back to the topic title, we'd also have non-flammable clothing for Techs instead of the current CADPAT.



FS…I was also thinking the General Safety Program would fit the CAF “status quo” today. 

Only, the CAF GS Program is understaffed and at the unit level, a secondary duty vice properly staffed and implemented as orders intend (former UGSO opinion).


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 Dec 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> FS…I was also thinking the General Safety Program would fit the CAF “status quo” today.
> 
> Only, the CAF GS Program is understaffed and at the unit level, a secondary duty vice properly staffed and implemented as orders intend (former UGSO opinion).



Bright idea: Simon Weston's photo on the wall of the CDS' Office might help keep the issue of burn prevention in wartime top of mind...


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Jan 2023)

Eye In The Sky said:


> FS…I was also thinking the General Safety Program would fit the CAF “status quo” today.
> 
> Only, the CAF GS Program is understaffed and at the unit level, a secondary duty vice properly staffed and implemented as orders intend (former UGSO opinion).


FWIW I tend to agree with you. Safety is an afterthought.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (2 Jan 2023)

OldSolduer said:


> FWIW I tend to agree with you. Safety is an *afterthought.*



I wouldn't even call it an afterthought. That makes it sound like something routine during an AAR. 

It would say it's a set of guidelines that only comes out forensically; after something bad has happened, an investigation has occurred, and they're looking to place liability.

I have been told "Yeah...so? Just STFU and do it" so many times in my career when I brought up safety issues, it makes me wonder if it's just window dressing.


----------



## dimsum (2 Jan 2023)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I wouldn't even call it an afterthought. That makes it sound like something routine during an AAR.
> 
> It would say it's a set of guidelines that only comes out forensically; after something bad has happened, an investigation has occurred, and they're looking to place liability.
> 
> I have been told "Yeah...so? Just STFU and do it" so many times in my career when I brought up safety issues, it makes me wonder if it's just window dressing.


Hence the difference between RCAF flight safety and other...um..."safety" programs.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Jan 2023)

dimsum said:


> Hence the difference between RCAF flight safety and other...um..."safety" programs.


One thing I will say about safety - during my time in the infantry - all of my career, there were very few incidents with weapons. Yes we all have heard of the incident in Suffield - which I believe placed the responsibility on the shoulders of a scapegoat - but when you consider the millions of rounds that have gone down range during live fire attacks, the casualties are minimal.


----------



## Quirky (2 Jan 2023)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I have been told "Yeah...so? Just STFU and do it" so many times in my career when I brought up safety issues, it makes me wonder if it's just window dressing.



I think everyones risk tolerance is different based on their experience and skill level. I don't know how it works in the Army world, but walking into a hangar full of leaky airplanes is a risk in itself.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Jan 2023)

Quirky said:


> I think everyones risk tolerance is different based on their experience and skill level. I don't know how it works in the Army world, but walking into a hangar full of leaky airplanes is a risk in itself.


Here is a scenario for you - Imagine if you will you and 7 of your close buddies are armed and fully bombed up with front line ammo.  Six x C7 assault rifles, two of which have 40 mm grenade launchers , 2 x C9 LMG, various grenades and other things to blow things up. 
How does one safely conduct a live fire section attack? Its actually quite simple but to the untrained eye it looks very dangerous, but its only mildly dangerous. Training and communication is the key.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (2 Jan 2023)

Quirky said:


> I think everyones risk tolerance is different based on their experience and skill level. I don't know how it works in the Army world, but walking into a hangar full of leaky airplanes is a risk in itself.



There being risk adverse, risk tolerant, and then stupidity masked as "risk acceptance."

"This building has asbestos in it, I'm not setting foot in it" is risk aversion. Yeah... sorry pal, none of these buildings are completely asbestos free. We can mitigate the risk by not eating the ceiling tiles. 

"There is a potential that someone could get hurt on this live fire range, but we have trained folks on safety and have enough A/RSOs and control measures in place that it's rare that things will go badly. Let's roll." That's risk tolerance and mitigation

"Yeah I don't care if you just came off a 8 hour CP shift and haven't slept; you're driving that Bison, you're the only one qualified. Get moving!" ....well....I digress

My experience in the Army has been that this "can do", get it done, "You're in the Army... what are you going to do when the shooting starts?" mentality towards OHSA stuff in garrison. 

It really is infuriating to see young dudes getting a 3B release; 3 years into a contract; because they were eager, cut corners, and had some idiot breathing down their neck to get the job done, regardless of it it were safe or not.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Jan 2023)

OldSolduer said:


> One thing I will say about safety - during my time in the infantry - all of my career, there were very few incidents with weapons. Yes we all have heard of the incident in Suffield - which I believe placed the responsibility on the shoulders of a scapegoat - but when you consider the millions of rounds that have gone down range during live fire attacks, the casualties are minimal.



We clearly need to train harder for war, then 

High training casualties in 2019 stemmed from large-scale combat focus​









						High training casualties in 2019 stemmed from large-scale combat focus
					

“If you are wearing your seat-belts, you survive. If you’re not wearing your seat-belts, you don’t,” the Army chief of staff said.




					www.armytimes.com


----------



## Kilted (3 Jan 2023)

rmc_wannabe said:


> "There is a potential that someone could get hurt on this live fire range, but we have trained folks on safety and have enough A/RSOs and control measures in place that it's rare that things will go badly. Let's roll." That's risk tolerance and mitigation


There are many overlapping safety measures. Remember one yeah doing the PWT 3, starting at the 400.  Targets went up everyone started to run till one new person fired a round instead of running.  Yes, there were people ahead of them, about halfway down the mound, but the individual who fired stayed within their arcs.  There was a safety failure, but another safety measure stopped it from resulting in an injury.


----------



## ueo (3 Jan 2023)

Halifax Tar said:


> When did we issue boot polish ?


Joinrd 65 and was issued Kiwi black tops until 70 or so.


----------



## ueo (3 Jan 2023)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I wouldn't even call it an afterthought. That makes it sound like something routine during an AAR.
> 
> It would say it's a set of guidelines that only comes out forensically; after something bad has happened, an investigation has occurred, and they're looking to place liability.
> 
> I have been told "Yeah...so? Just STFU and do it" so many times in my career when I brought up safety issues, it makes me wonder if it's just window dressing.


Until something/body FUs


----------



## Halifax Tar (3 Jan 2023)

ueo said:


> Joinrd 65 and was issued Kiwi black tops until 70 or so.



The good old days eh ?  I was born in '79


----------



## ueo (3 Jan 2023)

Halifax Tar said:


> The good old days eh ?  I was born in '79


Which should preclude your opinions!


----------



## Halifax Tar (3 Jan 2023)

ueo said:


> Which should preclude your opinions!



Lol need a Snickers Betty ?


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jan 2023)

ff149 said:


> I was a firefighter posted to the ships for a time. Every time we did fit testing we'd have at least one person who would give some issue about beards or such. They would try to get us to fit test them with the beard, not understanding that we can't. It was against the RPP.
> 
> I've also had an officer try and tell me we couldn't refuse an order even when it blatantly broke every safety rule I'd ever heard of. One quick chat with the EO and that was the end of that. He was told in no uncertain terms that he couldn't order people to do what he wanted us to do.



Meanwhile, the US Navy is doing a study...

New in 2023: Results of the Navy’s latest beard study coming in 2023​
Navy officials have in the past cited two Naval Safety Center reviews that found even a few days’ stubble might impact a mask’s seal.

But safety center records show just one incident in roughly the past 30 years in which a beard affected a mask seal, and it involved a civilian shipyard worker.

Under its existing waiver policy, the Navy limits beards to a quarter-inch length, but a 2021 Military Medicine article referenced assessments showing that half-face respirators were 98 percent effective with an 1/8-inch beard and 100 percent effective with a 1/16-inch beard.









						New in 2023: Results of the Navy’s latest beard study coming in 2023
					

SECNAV mandated a renewed assessment of the beard question earlier in 2022.




					www.militarytimes.com


----------



## Quirky (3 Jan 2023)

OldSolduer said:


> Here is a scenario for you - Imagine if you will you and 7 of your close buddies are armed and fully bombed up with front line ammo.  Six x C7 assault rifles, two of which have 40 mm grenade launchers , 2 x C9 LMG, various grenades and other things to blow things up.
> How does one safely conduct a live fire section attack? Its actually quite simple but to the untrained eye it looks very dangerous, but its only mildly dangerous. Training and communication is the key.



All of that puts a shiver down my spine. I’d probably call in for air support.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Jan 2023)

Quirky said:


> All of that puts a shiver down my spine. I’d probably call in for air support.


And that can happen with a good FAC/FOO or MFC when the infantry had their own mortars. 

Now imagine 3 sects of what I described with a Platoon Weapons Det that may be employing the C6 GPMG firing the sections in. Good times


----------



## Navy_Pete (3 Jan 2023)

daftandbarmy said:


> Meanwhile, the US Navy is doing a study...
> 
> New in 2023: Results of the Navy’s latest beard study coming in 2023​
> Navy officials have in the past cited two Naval Safety Center reviews that found even a few days’ stubble might impact a mask’s seal.
> ...



Weird stat if everyone is required to be clean shaven to wear a respirator.

The study in the Military Medicine was for a half face respirator which isn't used in fire fighting conditions (or for CBRN) so doesn't translate to that, and if it's only done for a static seal test it doesn't mean a whole lot.

We tested the specific RCN SCBAs under simulated fire fighting conditions (moving around etc) and no one with facial hair could keep a seal *WHILE FIRE FIGHTING*. While sitting still some people were okay, others lost it right away (even with a day's stubble). Really depends on face shape, hair thickness and some other factors, so pretty complicated.

I think with common sense there are plenty of occasions where you can have ways to let people grow some beards (ie shave buckets at the emergency stations) but you need to make sure you have enough people for your initial response. We tend to run with minimal folks for the start so there really isn't much wiggle room, and with our alongside duty watch down to 6 people now (from 10 not long ago) we are already at the edge of what's safe.

The USN also does things completely differently for crewing compared to RCN, RN, RAN and RNZN, so it's not the best one to follow, as they tend to have twice the crew for comparable ship size/capabilities.


----------



## dimsum (3 Jan 2023)

Navy_Pete said:


> Weird stat if everyone is required to be clean shaven to wear a respirator.
> 
> The study in the Military Medicine was for a half face respirator which isn't used in fire fighting conditions (or for CBRN) so doesn't translate to that, and if it's only done for a static seal test it doesn't mean a whole lot.
> 
> ...


What is the 6-person duty watch now?  

Also, it would be ironically funny if being clean shaven became a symbol that you were an "operational sailor", and not one of those staff weenies in HQ


----------



## Navy_Pete (3 Jan 2023)

dimsum said:


> What is the 6-person duty watch now?
> 
> Also, it would be ironically funny if being clean shaven became a symbol that you were an "operational sailor", and not one of those staff weenies in HQ


2 quarter masters (on/off watch), 2 MCR watchkeepers (on/off) officer of the day and petty officer of the day.

For a while it was down to 7 (with a duty technician) but they cut the duty tech.

Previously you had enough people on board to deal with some basic things. Now they only have enough to watch for emergencies and do the initial response, but are entirely dependent on other ships/shore support for the emergencies.

Depending who is on the duty watch, you likely won't be able to do basic things like go between shore/ship power, do basic troubleshooting on equipment etc. Essentially have to start recalling people.


----------



## brihard (3 Jan 2023)

Kilted said:


> There are many overlapping safety measures. Remember one yeah doing the PWT 3, starting at the 400.  Targets went up everyone started to run till one new person fired a round instead of running.  Yes, there were people ahead of them, about halfway down the mound, but the individual who fired stayed within their arcs.  There was a safety failure, but another safety measure stopped it from resulting in an injury.



I actually know a guy who got hit by a C9 burst during a live fire night attack. He survived, though it was career altering. Safety screwups we’re obviously found, and a court martial resulted for the soldier who fired.


----------



## Halifax Tar (3 Jan 2023)

Navy_Pete said:


> 2 quarter masters (on/off watch), 2 MCR watchkeepers (on/off) officer of the day and petty officer of the day.
> 
> For a while it was down to 7 (with a duty technician) but they cut the duty tech.
> 
> ...



I was the first or second person qualified as DPO on the east coast.  The initial roll out was ridiculously difficult for anyone not already a snr engineer.


----------



## medicineman (3 Jan 2023)

brihard said:


> I actually know a guy who got hit by a C9 burst during a live fire night attack. He survived, though it was career altering. Safety screwups we’re obviously found, and a court martial resulted for the soldier who fired.


I looked after 4 people blowed up in a tire house while they were doing a live fire assault...dude THREW the grenade in, with the foreseeable consequences of it bouncing off the wall and out the opposite door like a pool shot and exploding in the hallway.  Funny thing was, of all the live fire room and house clearing ranges we did that day, that wasn't the one I expected anyone to get hurt on.


----------



## ff149 (3 Jan 2023)

I should say when I was on the ships they were still using Chemox, which aren't positive pressure masks. So if there is a leak you are breathing in everything that's in the space. 

I remember one chief saying that they had asked various fire departments what their policy for shaving was for those working 24 hour shifts. He tried to say a 24 hour stubble is the same as a full beard. 

Or the CSE chief that came into an somewhat real Hazmat situation without any breathing apparatus on to ask how we were doing with the situation. I was thinking to myself that I was either really over dressed or he was under dressed.


----------



## Navy_Pete (4 Jan 2023)

ff149 said:


> I should say when I was on the ships they were still using Chemox, which aren't positive pressure masks. So if there is a leak you are breathing in everything that's in the space.
> 
> I remember one chief saying that they had asked various fire departments what their policy for shaving was for those working 24 hour shifts. He tried to say a 24 hour stubble is the same as a full beard.
> 
> Or the CSE chief that came into an somewhat real Hazmat situation without any breathing apparatus on to ask how we were doing with the situation. I was thinking to myself that I was either really over dressed or he was under dressed.


Even with positive pressure masks, if you lose the seal things are getting in. Bit like having an open door during a fire where the compartment is at positive pressure but you still get fresh air going in while smoke is coming out due to basic physics.

I have no idea why we were allowing beards with Chemoxes, but then again we were using something made for escaping mines in the 1950s for fire fighting up until about a dozen years ago. I hate when people try and use that to justify not shaving now; just because we used to do something stupid doesn't mean we still should.

Obviously things get worse for the seal the longer the beard is, but for some people 24 hours is enough to blow the seal when they start moving around and sweating, but that seems to be the same kind of person that has a 5 o'clock shadow 10 minutes after shaving..


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Jan 2023)

The solution? Go ahead grow that beard.

Then have an ex where they need to mask quickly and introduce them to Mr CS.


----------



## Navy_Pete (4 Jan 2023)

OldSolduer said:


> The solution? Go ahead grow that beard.
> 
> Then have an ex where they need to mask quickly and introduce them to Mr CS.


That used to happen regularly at the DC school with the Chemox and beards. Didn't matter, people are stupid and will roll the dice that they won't see a fire.

We have 1 or 2 a month, plus 2-3 near misses in a very small fleet. We actually just had a fire in the fire fighting school FFS on Xmas day. The RCN is an organization were hope and optimism is COA A, B, C, D.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1607060537103228929
Situation: We are probably foxed, but we think we're okay.

Mission: To do even more with even less. Also,  ignore the downward spiral on attrition.

Execution
Phase 1: Hope things are okay.
Phase 2: I'm sure it's fine.
Phase 3:


----------



## dimsum (4 Jan 2023)

Navy_Pete said:


> We actually just had a fire in the fire fighting school FFS on Xmas day.


That was not something I expected to read.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (4 Jan 2023)

Navy_Pete said:


> That used to happen regularly at the DC school with the Chemox and beards. Didn't matter, people are stupid and will roll the dice that they won't see a fire.
> 
> We have 1 or 2 a month, plus 2-3 near misses in a very small fleet. We actually just had a fire in the fire fighting school FFS on Xmas day. The RCN is an organization were hope and optimism is COA A, B, C, D.
> 
> ...


----------



## Navy_Pete (4 Jan 2023)

dimsum said:


> That was not something I expected to read.


Me neither, Merry Xmas!

Fortunately no one hurt, and these things happen, but still.  It's not just a theoretical risk, and part of sea pay is being on duty watch to react to a shipboard fire, so the wannabe Ragnars can just suck it up IMHO and shave.

Off the top of my head there were at least 3 or 4 alongside fires on ships last year, and one was big enough to cause about $500k in damage. We only have a dozen ships or less alongside at any point so statistically pretty poor.


----------



## Furniture (4 Jan 2023)

Navy_Pete said:


> Me neither, Merry Xmas!
> 
> Fortunately no one hurt, and these things happen, but still.  It's not just a theoretical risk, and part of sea pay is being on duty watch to react to a shipboard fire, so the wannabe Ragnars can just suck it up IMHO and shave.
> 
> Off the top of my head there were at least 3 or 4 alongside fires on ships last year, and one was big enough to cause about $500k in damage. We only have a dozen ships or less alongside at any point so statistically pretty poor.


Another factor to consider is that some of the clean shaven people will refuse to go into a fire, or can only make one run before they are spent(mental/physical). 

A friend of mine working the dispersal area during the PRO fire told me that there were people dressed who didn't get sent because they clearly weren't mentally fit for being on the attack team. If half of your hard chagers are wannabe "Ragnars", you could end up a few teams short of "out and overhauled"...


----------



## Navy_Pete (5 Jan 2023)

Furniture said:


> Another factor to consider is that some of the clean shaven people will refuse to go into a fire, or can only make one run before they are spent(mental/physical).
> 
> A friend of mine working the dispersal area during the PRO fire told me that there were people dressed who didn't get sent because they clearly weren't mentally fit for being on the attack team. If half of your hard chagers are wannabe "Ragnars", you could end up a few teams short of "out and overhauled"...


Yeah, lots of scenarios where it could be a problem; people can get cut off from their section base due to the damage, injured in the initial accident etc, so if you don't have redundancy for your initial response you are pretty much hooped. And even best case people will lose their seal anyway, and when that happens they generally only have enough time to evacuate, and there is a delay when you are waiting for a replacement.

FRE was a more recent example, but some people could only do one run and were exhausted, and a few folks were hyperventilating. Totally understandable, and hoping we'll finally get the live fire trainers up and running next year so that we can shake that out ashore and help people get over that hump.

Has been more progress in the last year and a bit on that than the previous decade, so that will help, but with other things on aging ships affecting smoke control and other basics, the risk/severity keeps going up and the BGHs want to keep running the old ships indefinitely.


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Jan 2023)

Navy_Pete said:


> Yeah, lots of scenarios where it could be a problem; people can get cut off from their section base due to the damage, injured in the initial accident etc, so if you don't have redundancy for your initial response you are pretty much hooped. And even best case people will lose their seal anyway, and when that happens they generally only have enough time to evacuate, and there is a delay when you are waiting for a replacement.
> 
> FRE was a more recent example, but some people could only do one run and were exhausted, and a few folks were hyperventilating. Totally understandable, and hoping we'll finally get the live fire trainers up and running next year so that we can shake that out ashore and help people get over that hump.
> 
> Has been more progress in the last year and a bit on that than the previous decade, so that will help, but with other things on aging ships affecting smoke control and other basics, the risk/severity keeps going up and the BGHs want to keep running the old ships indefinitely.



And, you know, train people to be as fit as firefighters... at least.


----------



## Navy_Pete (5 Jan 2023)

daftandbarmy said:


> And, you know, train people to be as fit as firefighters... at least.


It's not really even fitness, but we can't expect basically amateurs with a bit of training to do the same thing as professionals who do something full time, especially when they have far more sustained practice and realistic training.

To be fair, that's a pretty high fitness standard, but a lot of it is very specific to actually wearing the SCBA and controlling your breathing. Doing that for a half day once a year doesn't do that, but the firefighters do things like run on treadmills while on air (or play ball hockey, or otherwise do some kind of exercise) to train that part of it. So even really fit people who have the basic Navy training will not have the time in SCBA to be able to control their breathing the same way.

For context, the people that tend to do multiple runs on our ship fires are the ones that spend a lot of time in SCBA, so they've done things like instructor at the fire schools, a lot of time as helo crash rescue (they regularly practice), or similar. Most other people are 'one and done', and adrenaline dump seems to be a big part of that.

And the combination of fire, black smoke and the shear noise (especially in a steel box) triggers all kinds of lizard brain things, so the pucker factor is huge.  Our current trainers are propane based with white, theatrical smoke (when the building itself isn't burning) which doesn't get anywhere near as hot. Not sure what the army equivalent would be; maybe being under live fire for the first time in an actual combat zone, and only training with blanks?


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Jan 2023)

Navy_Pete said:


> Not sure what the army equivalent would be; maybe being under live fire for the first time in an actual combat zone, and only training with blanks?


 
In the Infantry we know we can never accurately recreate the conditions of war, in peacetime, so we focus on high levels of fitness training - and fairly gruelling field exercises - to help prepare troops for the physical and mental rigours they may face.

Lessons learned the hard way: Fat, soft people die when the shit hits the fan 

I've only done really basic 'confined space' fire suppression once, with a mask on in the dark when I thought I was pretty fit, and it was still bloody hard work.

I'll assume that a ship's company can't rely on a handful of 'experts' to do all the work during a big fire, or mass damage scenario, so increasing fitness standards on ship might be something to think about in terms of mitigating your risks. 

Fat leaders tend to downplay this need though, of course, because they know they would never be able to meet the standard.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Jan 2023)

Navy_Pete said:


> Yeah, lots of scenarios where it could be a problem; people can get cut off from their section base due to the damage, injured in the initial accident etc, so if you don't have redundancy for your initial response you are pretty much hooped. And even best case people will lose their seal anyway, and when that happens they generally only have enough time to evacuate, and there is a delay when you are waiting for a replacement.
> 
> FRE was a more recent example, but some people could only do one run and were exhausted, and a few folks were hyperventilating. Totally understandable, and hoping we'll finally get the live fire trainers up and running next year so that we can shake that out ashore and help people get over that hump.
> 
> Has been more progress in the last year and a bit on that than the previous decade, so that will help, but with other things on aging ships affecting smoke control and other basics, the risk/severity keeps going up and the BGHs want to keep running the old ships indefinitely.


Is/will there be a BoI for the FRE fire?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Jan 2023)

daftandbarmy said:


> In the Infantry we know we can never accurately recreate the conditions of war, in peacetime, so we focus on high levels of fitness training - and fairly gruelling field exercises - to help prepare troops for the physical and mental rigours they may face.
> 
> Lessons learned the hard way: Fat, soft people die when the shit hits the fan
> 
> ...


I did the old, diesel fire house, back in the day, with Chemox and the silver rainsuit for protection. Having balls of flame running over your head is surreal, while you try to knock down an oil pan fire with pure water. The heat and noise are unbelievable.


----------



## Halifax Tar (5 Jan 2023)

SeaKingTacco said:


> I did the old, diesel fire house, back in the day, with Chemox and the silver rainsuit for protection. Having balls of flame running over your head is surreal, while you try to knock down an oil pan fire with pure water. The heat and noise are unbelievable.



That was a fire trainer.


----------



## dimsum (5 Jan 2023)

SeaKingTacco said:


> I did the old, diesel fire house, back in the day, with Chemox and the silver rainsuit for protection. Having balls of flame running over your head is surreal, while you try to knock down an oil pan fire with pure water. The heat and noise are unbelievable.


TORCH and TUMULT.  

Those were the days...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Jan 2023)

dimsum said:


> TORCH and TUMULT.
> 
> Those were the days...


I am not going to lie…I was scared shitless Doing the down hatch drill into to the “engine room”. You could not see a thing to due the heavy black smoke and everything was greasy slippery. If you wiped out going down the ladder you were going to suffer a significant and life altering injury. If you lived.


----------



## Rd651 (5 Jan 2023)

Navy_Pete said:


> It's not really even fitness, but we can't expect basically amateurs with a bit of training to do the same thing as professionals who do something full time, especially when they have far more sustained practice and realistic training.
> 
> To be fair, that's a pretty high fitness standard, but a lot of it is very specific to actually wearing the SCBA and controlling your breathing. Doing that for a half day once a year doesn't do that, but the firefighters do things like run on treadmills while on air (or play ball hockey, or otherwise do some kind of exercise) to train that part of it. So even really fit people who have the basic Navy training will not have the time in SCBA to be able to control their breathing the same way.
> 
> ...


Well said Navy Pete !


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (5 Jan 2023)

daftandbarmy said:


> In the Infantry we know we can never accurately recreate the conditions of war, in peacetime, so we focus on6 high levels of fitness training - and fairly gruelling field exercises - to help prepare troops for the physical and mental rigours they may face.
> 
> Lessons learned the hard way: Fat, soft people die when the shit hits the fan
> 
> ...


Can you do it when it actually counts?  What a tough question to ask D&B.... meanwhile I know NWOs that can't even fit in bunker gear.

😅😅😅


----------



## FSTO (5 Jan 2023)

SeaKingTacco said:


> I am not going to lie…I was scared shitless Doing the down hatch drill into to the “engine room”. You could not see a thing to due the heavy black smoke and everything was greasy slippery. If you wiped out going down the ladder you were going to suffer a significant and life altering injury. If you lived.


I don't think I ever had a full lung when I fought fires at the old school. It was amazing nobody got serious hurt or killed there.


----------



## ff149 (5 Jan 2023)

I was lucky, I did the old damage control school before I remustered to firefighter. For our trades training we tried to ensure the fires were really smokey so that the students could feel like a fire could actually feel like. We had the odd student who had to go into another trade because they couldn't deal with the conditions in the burn buildings. 

I know firefighters where sometimes our own worse enemy while we were posted on ships, I witnessed both our people being jerks and us being ignored when we tried to bring up a different way to look at things. I did have to have a conversation with the EO after a table top exercise about a fire, the plan the ship came up with would have probably killed two of the three attack teams. When I brought this to there attention they were said "well we see the fire departments doing that on TV all the time", basically they were using a defensive tactic while they still had people doing an offensive tactic. This is a major no no in our word. Luckily they listened and decided not to do that plan. 

I actually enjoyed my time on the ship, looking back at it, it was one of the best times in my military career.


----------



## Navy_Pete (5 Jan 2023)

daftandbarmy said:


> In the Infantry we know we can never accurately recreate the conditions of war, in peacetime, so we focus on high levels of fitness training - and fairly gruelling field exercises - to help prepare troops for the physical and mental rigours they may face.
> 
> Lessons learned the hard way: Fat, soft people die when the shit hits the fan
> 
> ...


Fitness would absolutely make a big difference for sure, I guess I just meant that aside from being fit you also need to practice air management with the SCBA on (and be generally comfortable with the harness etc), and getting exposed to real conditions on training helps not panic when you're against the real thing (which also seems to happen a lot when you are in rough seas to add an extra challenge). 

The fire fighter fitness test is a pretty high standard as well; it used to count as an exemption for the old PT test and not sure what it is for the FORCE test equivalent, but aside from the weirdness that is the 'stop drop and jazz hands' bit, I don't see why anyone that can't pass that one wouldn't crush the FORCE test.

Not everyone needs to be a marathon runner or Brogames champ for what we expect them to do for firefighting, but I think we need to do some ongoing practical practice with people in the SCBA more than once a year just to be used to it, and you can incorporate it into PT anyway fairly easily. The cylinders need to get refreshed every so often anyway so the air isn't 'stale' so may as well actually use the air instead of dumping/refilling unused bottles.


----------



## mariomike (Friday at 10:25)

OldSolduer said:


> The solution? Go ahead grow that beard.
> 
> Then have an ex where they need to mask quickly and introduce them to Mr CS.



We wore Scott Air-Paks during high-rise evacuations.

Grooming standards required us to be clean shaven. But, even without that, the Air-Pak included a warning about facial hair.


----------

