# Desexualized clothing instructions fail for gender specific directions



## McG (30 Sep 2016)

Looks like an Air Cadet Corps has gotten itself in some hot water and garnered ministerial level attention for what was intended to be instructions to desexualize the clothing cadets choose to wear for training.  The criticism is accurate.  If one does not want to see people's underwear hanging out of pants nor butts outlined through yoga pants, then you make that direction as opposed to saying "boys hide your underwear and girls don't wear yoga pants."  But, a national news storey and MND on camera statements seem to be more than this incident merits. 

In any case, Reg F and PRes might look forward to one thing migrating across from this.  Gender specific earring regulations are part of what is catching attention in this. 


> *Dress code guide tells female air cadets not to reveal 'developing bits'*
> Parent guide says 'girls are to wear shirts which do not reveal their developing bits'
> By Lukas Wall, CBC News
> 30 Sep 2016
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/female-cadets-told-to-cover-up-1.3785528


----------



## FSTO (30 Sep 2016)

Yep, once again the CAF will be beat about the head on how bad they are.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Sep 2016)

Gender specific earring reg's have ALWAYS been in place.  Why would this be an issue?  Is that going to be acceptable in the near future?  Please say no.  Someone, anyone...

What next?  Men allowed to wear skirts when in DEU?


----------



## Journeyman (30 Sep 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What next?  Men allowed to wear skirts when in DEU?


Cue the Highland militia reps......     op:


       :stirpot:


----------



## Flavus101 (30 Sep 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Cue the Highland militia reps......     op:
> 
> 
> :stirpot:



That doesn't affect us, they're kilts.  :nana:


----------



## Journeyman (30 Sep 2016)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> That doesn't affect us, they're kilts.  :nana:


I knew _someone_  would bite.    :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Sep 2016)

Maybe they should allow us males to wear the DEU skirt.  What kind of heels would match the Yukon hat anyways??  

And, earrings.  Some nice small pearls would finish that look off perfectly...especially if I was able to get a beard chit!!


----------



## McG (30 Sep 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What next?  Men allowed to wear skirts when in DEU?


... and a blouse when in mess kit.
In the Navy, you may also see guys trading their service cap for a service hat.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Sep 2016)

Why don't female sailors wear the same headdress?  Why can't men in the CAF wear earrings?  Is this a Leave It To Beaver reenactment society, or can our dress regs change from the 1950s?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Sep 2016)

Our dress regs don't have to be so lax as to make us look as 'professional' as the kids working the MacDonalds drive-thru.  The PC truck has to stop somewhere, and people like me think it has already gone a block or 2 too far down the road now.  

We're slowly losing the little things...so I suspect someday you WILL see me in DEU with skirt, earrings, Yukon hat with a beard.  You know, to discard the Leave It To Beaver look and be a professional military airmen.  

Perhaps a new male RCAF mess kit is required?   ;D


----------



## McG (30 Sep 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Our dress regs don't have to be so lax as to make us look as 'professional' as the kids working the MacDonalds drive-thru.


Are earrings really the line in the sand on that?  Nobody is talking nose rings, lip studs, or ear grommets.  A guy wearing a subdued metal ear stud is going to make the CAF look like a bunch of Walmartians?


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Sep 2016)

:facepalm: f35k.

When will the stupidity stop?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Sep 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> Are earrings really the line in the sand on that?  Nobody is talking nose rings, lip studs, or ear grommets.  A guy wearing a subdued metal ear stud is going to make the CAF look like a bunch of Walmartians?



There has to be a 'line in the sand' somewhere, no?   For me, yes.  If not, what next?  Makeup and skirts are okay for males too?  Heels?  Where IS the line?  Nowhere?  5 years from now, the nose rings, or lip studs, or ear grommets WILL be allowed if we don't stop this crap at some point.  Earrings are a fine place to stop in my books.  

Seriously.  This is getting fuckin' ridiculous.

Too attempt to put this back on the original topic though...the 4 Bs part was right out of er IMO.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Sep 2016)

Women need to wear loose clothing to prevent men from being turned on?


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Sep 2016)

I've said this before publicly:

Some of our citizens emulate the Taliban when it comes to telling women how they should dress. 

Earrings on men - not in uniform - ever.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (30 Sep 2016)

Personally I feel that our dress regulations should be the same for everyone no matter what their sex, gender, race, or religion is (whether or not this is a higher standard than currently stands doesn't matter to me provided it is a equal standard for all). Our military's dress regulations are sexist (different clothing, hair, make up, and ear ring standards), racist (natives can have ponytails), and discriminate based on religion (beards for certain religions, long hair for certain religions, etc.). Based on this, our regulations violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which we have been ordered to comply with unless we can provide a justified reason (this is also the reason we now have women in every portion of the CF, as we couldn't justify otherwise).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Sep 2016)

The accommodations in our dress regs for First Nations mbrs and those with specific religious followings are racist and discriminate?  Wasn't part of the argument for creating these accommodations for First Nations, religion etc based on the idea that are regs previous to current ones were not taking into account these exact things in the first place?  When we didn't have them...we were bad.  Now we have them...we are bad.

You're suggesting we will keep our professional look if men can wear earrings, makeup and skirts in DEU?

 ???


----------



## Eaglelord17 (30 Sep 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The accommodations in our dress regs for First Nations mbrs and those with specific religious followings are racist and discriminate?  Wasn't part of the argument for creating these accommodations for First Nations, religion etc based on the idea that are regs previous to current ones were not taking into account these exact things in the first place?  When we didn't have them...we were bad.  Now we have them...we are bad.
> 
> You're suggesting we will keep our professional look if men can wear earrings, makeup and skirts in DEU?
> 
> ???



I never said that earrings, makeup and skirts should be allowed for men, only that everyone have the same standard. If that means women have to have short hair, pants, and no earring so be it, I really don't care beyond the concept of the same standard for everyone. We all do the same job and therefore should all be held to the same standard. Every argument that was used for the 
Express test to the Force test applies here. If this means we should create trade specific standards, I am also ok with that, provided it is the same for everyone within that trade.


----------



## CanPatr (30 Sep 2016)

Since when did having a dress code become a problem? Is there a better more politically correct way to tell people what the dress code is?
Why is it sexualizing to tell women (and men) not to have underwear or certain parts showing. Is that not just etiquette? 

Also, is she mad at the dress code or the way it was said; I see little problem with either. Its hard to touch on that topic and not offend people. You have to communicate it somehow right?  ??? ??? ???


----------



## Coffee_psych (30 Sep 2016)

This absolutely falls short of what is expected of military personnel.  By pointing out specific items and then associating them to a gender breeds a false logic to young cadets.  Mainly that the sexes are different and should be treated differently.  Except that isn't what the military aims to do, when you're in the military your sex/gender is inconsequential especially during active duty.  You are expected to perform because being a soldier comes first, and everything else comes after. 

Get it together St. Johns Cadet admins!


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Sep 2016)

I think it's awesome this mom got a response from the minister of national defence before the offending unit in question even responded.  This sounds like a mission for the S.O.R.T.




			
				Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> This absolutely falls short of what is expected of military personnel.  By pointing out specific items and then associating them to a gender breeds a false logic to young cadets.  Mainly that the sexes are different and should be treated differently.  Except that isn't what the military aims to do, when you're in the military your sex/gender is inconsequential especially during active duty.  You are expected to perform because being a soldier comes first, and everything else comes after.
> 
> Get it together St. Johns Cadet admins!



We should be careful calling cadets soldiers.


----------



## FSTO (30 Sep 2016)

I wish that the mom would have went to the Air Cadet Corp directly and voiced her concern over the directive instead of running to the media. This could have been handled in house without the everyone in DND losing their heads to stamp out this "atrocity"!

Guess she wanted her 15 min of fame.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Sep 2016)

Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> This absolutely falls short of what is expected of military personnel.  By pointing out specific items and then associating them to a gender breeds a false logic to young cadets.  Mainly that the sexes are different and should be treated differently.  Except that isn't what the military aims to do, when you're in the military your sex/gender is inconsequential especially during active duty.  You are expected to perform because being a soldier comes first, and everything else comes after.
> 
> Get it together St. Johns Cadet admins!



If your military experience went beyond that of an applicant, you'd maybe realize the reality vice the idea in your post after a few years of experience in the military.  Something to consider.

Men and women are not the same, they don't have the same issues and concerns.  Disagree?  I'll give you 2 solid examples.  Testicular cancer and miscarriages.  Despite our society and their desire to make everything tidy, neat and PC...Mother Nature will prevail.  

Last point, not _everyone_ in the military is a soldier.  I am an airman;  I wear a wedge, air ops capbadge and aircrew wings.  Sailors are sailors.  Cadets are Cadets, whether they are air, sea or army cadets.  

_Active Duty_ is a US military term.   :2c:


----------



## Remius (30 Sep 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Last point, not _everyone_ in the military is a soldier.  I am an airman;  I wear a wedge, air ops capbadge and aircrew wings.  Sailors are sailors.  Cadets are Cadets, whether they are air, sea or army cadets.
> 
> _Active Duty_ is a US military term.   :2c:



According to this the army is made up of soldiers, navy is made up of sailors and the RCAF is made up of personel.  [

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about/canadian-armed-forces.page


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Sep 2016)

It takes up less time and space than saying "airmen and airwomen" every time!   8)  They should just make the leap and call us _air-people_.


----------



## MARS (30 Sep 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I wish that the mom would have went to the Air Cadet Corp directly and voiced her concern over the directive instead of running to the media.
> 
> Guess she wanted her 15 min of fame.



Because its 2016.  [


----------



## Remius (30 Sep 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It takes up less time and space than saying "airmen and airwomen" every time!   8)  They should just make the leap and call us _air-people_.



Sky soldier.  Adding Sky makes you guys sound cooler. We need to waste money so let's change it.

Sky soldier
Sky corporal
Master Sky corporal
Sky sergeant
Sky warrant
Master Sky warrant
Sky chief

Sky cadet
Sky ensign
Sky lieutenant 
Sky captain
Sky major
Lieutenant Sky colonel
Sky colonel
Sky Brigadier
Sky Brigadier 2
Lieutenant Sky marshal
Sky marshal


----------



## cavalryman (30 Sep 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Sky soldier.  Adding Sky makes you guys sound cooler. We need to waste money so let's change it.
> 
> Sky soldier
> Sky corporal
> ...


It's 2016... replace sky with aerospace at the least, so that we can have aerospace cadets for example


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Sep 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Sky soldier.  Adding Sky makes you guys sound cooler. We need to waste money so let's change it.
> 
> Sky soldier
> Sky corporal
> ...



God DAMMIT !! take that down before someone sees it and talks about it on Monday morning at the Good Idea Fairy O Gp!!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Sep 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> It's 2016... replace sky with aerospace at the least, so that we can have aerospace cadets for example



And the rank could be abbreviated A. Space Cdt  8)


----------



## dimsum (30 Sep 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Sky captain



Already done:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Oct 2016)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Already done:



I bet his leather jacket is authorized for flying ops!   ;D


----------



## Ostrozac (1 Oct 2016)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Earrings on men - not in uniform - ever.



Admiral Sir Henry Morgan of the Royal Navy disagrees; earrings are a strong part of the naval tradition, right up there with the executive curl and the rum ration.


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Oct 2016)

I sailed with a CO who authorized earrings on men for rounding the Cape of Good Hope.  He even got one himself, if I remember correctly.  The had to be removed before we got home. 

Snr PA did the piercing and the men supplied their own earrings.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Oct 2016)

I don't believe a CO has the authority to authorize earrings, despite the wording of Ch 1, Para 8 of 265....but, hey, Snr Officers can do whatever the hell they want, right?  Screw the 'lead by example' stuff.  "I will do what I want, but you must follow the orders".  Awesome.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Oct 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I don't believe a CO has the authority to authorize earrings, despite the wording of Ch 1, Para 8 of 265....but, hey, Snr Officers can do whatever the hell they want, right?  Screw the 'lead by example' stuff.  "I will do what I want, but you must follow the orders".  Awesome.



I think you missed the circumstances under which such permissions would be set.

Let me see now.  When you were green and you were in the Field and your issue kit sucked, did your CO authorize you to wear non-issue kit....American rain jacket perhaps?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Oct 2016)

American rain jackets, though, aren't weren't strictly prohibited in 265...they were authorized 'beyond the range control gate' or something like that in G-town IIRC; so, authorized by the CO or Base Cmdr or whoever said we could wear them (back in the day) after crossing range control;  we also had to remove them, and jungle boots, etc before re-entering the garrison (I recall getting reamed out with my US rain jacket on outside the Crse WO bullpin in the School when RSM Brown walked by  :nod: and said "that$@&*@&#@ jacket comes off when you hit Range Control, Cpl !!!!!). 

Every Dress Instruction I have seen, to date, males with earrings on duty/in uniform has been explicitly _not_ authorized.  

So...not quite apples to apples?


----------



## George Wallace (1 Oct 2016)

You are still missing the circumstances and context.






and all that goes with ship's/unit's moral.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Oct 2016)

Well...what to say to that.  I'm glad I ended up at a Sqn that doesn't sail?   ;D


----------



## mariomike (1 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> and all that goes with ship's/unit's moral.


----------



## FSTO (1 Oct 2016)

There was a reason why sailors have worn ear-rings.

This bit below from a association of funeral directors website 

British seamen had a gold earring placed in their left ear when they first rounded the horn. It was in the left ear as that was the shoreward side in the outbound crossing and thus pointed to land, port, or, hopefully, safe harbor. The earring had an additional significance. If they died at sea, the gold earring was supposed to provide recompense for a proper burial.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You are still missing the circumstances and context.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You were saving that photo for JUST this moment, weren't you?


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Oct 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Sky soldier.  Adding Sky makes you guys sound cooler. We need to waste money so let's change it.
> 
> Sky soldier
> Sky corporal
> ...



Meanwhile, in the world's biggest air force: http://www.stripes.com/news/airmen-gender-based-job-titles-not-high-on-radar-1.416831


----------



## Blackadder1916 (1 Oct 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, in the world's biggest air force: http://www.stripes.com/news/airmen-gender-based-job-titles-not-high-on-radar-1.416831



The difference being that the "M" word is being changed in job titles (MOS, trade, classification, specialty, rating . . .) in the other services.  Their ranks and rates will remain as before as well as certain traditional terminology (e.g. "Every Marine is a Rifleman" - rifleman is not an occupation).  Airman is a rank, not a job title.  Seaman is a rate (i.e. rank), not a job title - it will stay.

Even if it was high on the USAF's radar to change AFSCs to reflect this policy, there are not many that would be affected.
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104609/enlisted-afsc-classifications.aspx


> 8C0XX Airmen/Family Readiness Center
> 8H0XX Airman Dorm Leader
> 9F0XX First Term Airmen Center
> 9T0XX Basic Enlisted Airman



Now, what I thought was stupid was changing the rank title of RCAF air element uniform wearing Privates to Aviator.


----------



## McG (1 Oct 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> There has to be a 'line in the sand' somewhere, no?   For me, yes.  If not, what next?  Makeup and skirts are okay for males too?  Heels?  Where IS the line?  Nowhere?  5 years from now, the nose rings, or lip studs, or ear grommets WILL be allowed if we don't stop this crap at some point.  Earrings are a fine place to stop in my books.


Canadian society has decided it is okay for men to wear earrings.  I suspect that if the issue made its way to a court marshal today, the military would have a hard time winning the argument that male soldiers cannot wear earrings in situations where women can.  Hell, we are in the age of "choose your own gender and washroom."  We either get ahead of the wave and define the gender-free professional looking dress standards, or eventually those standards will be externally defined for us without concern for what we may think looks professional.  So yes, it is skirts & blouses as an option for everybody or for nobody.  Either everybody can choose between peak cap and peak hat, or everybody is directed to wear the same.

Anyway, the general in charge of the cadet program and the CDS have now joined the MDN in providing public comment. 


> *Defence minister slams cadet letter referring to breasts as 'developing bits'*
> CTV News
> 30 Sep 2016
> 
> ...


http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/defence-minister-slams-cadet-letter-referring-to-breasts-as-developing-bits-1.3096718


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> Canadian society has decided it is okay for men to wear earrings.  I suspect that if the issue made its way to a court marshal today, the military would have a hard time winning the argument that male soldiers cannot wear earrings in situations where women can.  Hell, we are in the age of "choose your own gender and washroom."  *We either get ahead of the wave and define the gender-free professional looking dress standards, or eventually those standards will be externally defined for us without concern for what we may think looks professional.  So yes, it is skirts & blouses as an option for everybody or for nobody.  Either everybody can choose between peak cap and peak hat, or everybody is directed to wear the same.*
> 
> Anyway, the general in charge of the cadet program and the CDS have now joined the MDN in providing public comment. http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/defence-minister-slams-cadet-letter-referring-to-breasts-as-developing-bits-1.3096718




Bingo! You're quite right ... we you do it, the right way, or it will be done to you, most likely the wrong way.


----------



## Harris (1 Oct 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It takes up less time and space than saying "airmen and airwomen" every time!   8)  They should just make the leap and call us _air-people_.



How about "Village People"  [


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Oct 2016)

[quote author=MCG]
*Canadian society has decided it is okay for men to wear earrings.*  I suspect that *if the issue made its way to a court marshal today, the military would have a hard time winning* the argument that male soldiers cannot wear earrings in situations where women can.  Hell, we are in the age of "choose your own gender and washroom."  We either get ahead of the wave and *define the gender-free professional looking dress standards, or eventually those standards will be externally defined for us *without concern for what we may think looks professional.  So yes, it is skirts & blouses as an option for everybody or for nobody.  Either everybody can choose between peak cap and peak hat, or everybody is directed to wear the same.
[/quote]

I think you're bang on the money with your observations MCG. Conservative as we may be the CAF is a reflection of Canadian society (even if it can be said we lag somewhat behind). Society today is moving towards someone picking their gender, picking their sex, picking their pronouns (just read a hillarious story about a university student changing his to your majesty) and whatever identity.   Someone who is physically male can use a female shower if they identify as female. They can dress in women's clothing. Drawing a line in the sand saying a man can't have an earing honestly seems like a losing battle. And we all know someone out there will try and push the limits. A male wearing a DEU skirt with a hajab over his turban with a long pony tail sticking out, why not if he identifies as all those?

If the CAF doesn't try and do some damage control and find a happier middle ground we're just going to be told what our dress standards by someone outside the military.

Lets start a revolution. One uniform, one rank system >


----------



## FSTO (2 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Lets start a revolution. One uniform, one rank system >



Sure, the Naval one! >


----------



## McG (2 Oct 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Sure, the Naval one! >


I'd sooner recommend something grey.  It is a neutral colour, so there would be less whining about whose identity is being most stepped upon by the others.  But ... this is getting a little off topic and there is a whole thread for discussing the aesthetic aspects of unification, de-unification, reunification, and other such tinkering.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Oct 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> Canadian society has decided it is okay for men to wear earrings.  I suspect that if the issue made its way to a court marshal today, the military would have a hard time winning the argument that male soldiers cannot wear earrings in situations where women can.  Hell, we are in the age of "choose your own gender and washroom."  We either get ahead of the wave and define the gender-free professional looking dress standards, or eventually those standards will be externally defined for us without concern for what we may think looks professional.  So yes, it is skirts & blouses as an option for everybody or for nobody.  Either everybody can choose between peak cap and peak hat, or everybody is directed to wear the same.



Guys with earrings is hardly a new thing;  I did it back in highschool and that was approaching 30 years ago.  Also..."Canadian society" isn't exactly the best benchmark for making decisions on acceptable/not acceptable things in the military.  WE (the military WE) are not the same as Canadian society, and an outwardly professional appearance is something that sets the uniformed services apart from the 'rest of society'.

Court marshal.  Seems pretty simple.  QR & O Vol 1 (Ch 5, IIRC) basically states Officers and NCMs are responsible to know and adhere to any/all regulations pertinent to their duties, or words to that affect.  265 says no earring for males on duty.  Every Base/Wing Dress Instr I have ever seen fordbids earrings on males in duty.  I don't see the grey line.  The Charter of Rights doesn't say "wear what I want when I want".  What next, can I challenge the requirement I have for safety toe shoes (from several orders), because the civie next door doesn't have to wear them to his job and Sobeys?  

I know other are thinking the same as you, like ERC and Jarnhamar, but I am one who says "enough is enough".  Not all change is good change, and earrings skirts and heels on men in uniform is NOT good change.  Canadian society also wants pot to be legal;  you want that be allowed next by serving members?

I've had my say, and appreciate differing opinions on this.  I guess I'll put on my Dinosaur sign and go to the corner now.   ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Oct 2016)

[quote author=Eye In The Sky]
I know other are thinking the same as you, like ERC and Jarnhamar, but I am one who says "enough is enough".  Not all change is good change, and earrings skirts and heels on men in uniform is NOT good change.  Canadian society also wants pot to be legal;  you want that be allowed next by serving members?

I've had my say, and appreciate differing opinions on this.  I guess I'll put on my Dinosaur sign and go to the corner now.   ;D
[/quote]

Yea go play with your neanderthal trading cards with George!  
I agree with you though how silly it is. I'll wear a dress and heels in protest  :nod:


What irks me about this story so to speak is that there's so much shit wrong with the CAF (forgive my blasphemousness) but this story has immediate responses from the MND and our commander. Yes without a doubt it's a big deal and absolutely an issue that needed to be addressed and fixed (which I'm sure will have a ripple effect to cadet units across the country guilty of this kind of stupidity) but what about our other huge issues?

What's the MND and commander have to say about
-ammunition shortages which effect training 
-combat boot fiasco (anyone receiving disciplinary action over how much that shit show cost the CF?)
-uniform shortages (guys and girls and being given sewing kits and told to patch their stuff up)
-CFRC 
-state of our vehicles
-state of our machineguns
-getting rid of the .50cal from the regular army  ???


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Yea go play with your neanderthal trading cards with George!
> I agree with you though how silly it is. I'll wear a dress and heels in protest  :nod:
> 
> 
> ...



Their political bosses, and the public, don't know/care about the other stuff. That's the main reason.


----------



## McG (2 Oct 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Court marshal.  Seems pretty simple.  QR & O Vol 1 (Ch 5, IIRC) basically states Officers and NCMs are responsible to know and adhere to any/all regulations pertinent to their duties, or words to that affect.  265 says no earring for males on duty.  Every Base/Wing Dress Instr I have ever seen fordbids earrings on males in duty.  I don't see the grey line.  The Charter of Rights doesn't say "wear what I want when I want".


How did that work for the CF when removing headdress on parade for the padre was contested?  It does not matter how many times or in how many ways the CAF writes it, if we constrain a freedom (even one not explicitly listed in law) based on a gender then the court will side with the freedom.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What next, can I challenge the requirement I have for safety toe shoes (from several orders), because the civie next door doesn't have to wear them to his job and Sobeys?


You are making a strawman.  This is not about being able to to anything one sees done on civi street.  This is about not being able to constrain people's behavior based on their gender.  You know this.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Canadian society also wants pot to be legal;  you want that be allowed next by serving members?


We may have no choice in the matter.  But, like alcohol, we will be able to restrict when service members can use in relation to time of duty or geography; NDA drunkeness laws will also continue to apply.  But, unless you are suggesting that pot will be authorized to one gender but not the other, then we are going down another red herring and strawman.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not all change is good change, and earrings skirts and heels on men in uniform is NOT good change.


You don't have to like it, but a head in the sand is not going to change it.  You don't want to see male soldiers in skirts?  Fine, then make your hill that nobody in the CAF wear skirts.  No skirts for men and no skirts for women.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Oct 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> How did that work for the CF when removing headdress on parade for the padre was contested?  It does not matter how many times or in how many ways the CAF writes it, if we constrain a freedom (even one not explicitly listed in law) based on a gender then the court will side with the freedom.
> You are making a strawman.  This is not about being able to to anything one sees done on civi street.  This is about not being able to constrain people's behavior based on their gender.  You know this.
> We may have no choice in the matter.  But, like alcohol, we will be able to restrict when service members can use in relation to time of duty or geography; NDA drunkeness laws will also continue to apply.  But, unless you are suggesting that pot will be authorized to one gender but not the other, then we are going down another red herring and strawman.
> You don't have to like it, but a head in the sand is not going to change it.  You don't want to see male soldiers in skirts?  Fine, then make your hill that nobody in the CAF wear skirts.  No skirts for men and no skirts for women.



I actually like this idea, EVERYONE should be the same.  Same uniforms, same haircuts, same shoes, same everything.  If women can grow their hair out then men should be allowed as well.  Likewise, if women want earrings then men should be allowed earrings as well.  Either both have the option or nobody does.  Pretty simple?  

Nice true equality absent of any stupid cultural and societal biases.


----------



## CombatMacguyver (2 Oct 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I actually like this idea, EVERYONE should be the same.  Same uniforms, same haircuts, same shoes, same everything.  If women can grow their hair out then men should be allowed as well.  Likewise, if women want earrings then men should be allowed earrings as well.  Either both have the option or nobody does.  Pretty simple?
> 
> Nice true equality absent of any stupid cultural and societal biases.



I completely agree.  I honestly advocate for Heinlen style equality (starship troopers).  Gender separation in the Army is ridiculous (in any form, including uniform standards).  It only works in garrison anyways, once you're sleeping in the ditch all bets are off.

Same thing goes for religious exceptions.  As far as I'm concerned that has no place in a secular institution.  As many Padres as I've met and liked, the trade is ludicrously out-of-date and I absolutely detest having to listen to prayers on parades, gatherings, etc.  The _"they're more like a social worker"_ argument doesn't hold water with me because if that's the role then we should recruit social workers and be done with it.

My ideal Army is gender neutral and has done away with a lot of pointless traditions (a topic for another day perhaps)

On the other hand as much as this stuff annoys the hell out of me; the lack of ammunition and uniforms, the 30 year old ML, the useless LS, our joke of a Navy and Air Force and pathetically small Army..... (the list goes on) bother me a million times more.


----------



## Coffee_psych (4 Oct 2016)

A few of you have mentioned that the military is known to lag behind.   I am hoping that the military will be setting the precedent in a few years.  When human rights are upheld, seriously, and with respect, that's all that is needed to rise above.  Like the four major components of being successful in the army: Courage, Integrity, Loyalty, and Duty.  

If we work hard, and aren't lazy, we will get so much further.  

Yeah and these sexualized clothing instructions knocked us back into the 1970s...


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Oct 2016)

[quote author=CombatMacgyver]
Same thing goes for religious exceptions.  As far as I'm concerned that has no place in a secular institution.  As many Padres as I've met and liked, the trade is ludicrously out-of-date and I absolutely detest having to listen to prayers on parades, gatherings, etc.  The _"they're more like a social worker"_ argument doesn't hold water with me because if that's the role then we should recruit social workers and be done with it.[/quote]

Maybe we could go the other way with unit padres and make them the biggest meanest toughest members of a regiment. When they're not in the gym terrifying weights they're roaming the halls meriting out punishment for members who fail to recite the Reg­i­men­tal Cat­e­chisms, routine orders, battle honours and such  :camo:


----------



## George Wallace (4 Oct 2016)

Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> A few of you have mentioned that the military is known to lag behind.   I am hoping that the military will be setting the precedent in a few years.  When human rights are upheld, seriously, and with respect, that's all that is needed to rise above.  Like the four major components of being successful in the army: Courage, Integrity, Loyalty, and Duty.
> 
> If we work hard, and aren't lazy, we will get so much further.
> 
> Yeah and these sexualized clothing instructions knocked us back into the 1970s...



Seriously....I am waiting for the day that the military goes back to being ADULTS.  Since the mid-80's the Canadian military has increasingly expanded a philosophy of treating its members more like children than adults, and as a result, they have begun acting like children and not taking responsibility for their actions.


----------



## McG (4 Oct 2016)

It is back in the news again to announce that all the offending booklets have been destroyed and that an investigation has been launched.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/inappropriate-leaflets-from-n-l-squadron-removed-destroyed-military


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Maybe we could go the other way with unit padres and make them the biggest meanest toughest members of a regiment. When they're not in the gym terrifying weights they're roaming the halls meriting out punishment for members who fail to recite the Reg­i­men­tal Cat­e­chisms, routine orders, battle honours and such  :camo:



How about a sniper? 

David Cooper was a Bisley shot and coached the 2 PARA rifle team - oh, and he passed P Company, Parachute Training and served in the Falklands War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cooper_(chaplain)


----------



## RedcapCrusader (5 Oct 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I actually like this idea, EVERYONE should be the same.  Same uniforms, same haircuts, same shoes, same everything.  If women can grow their hair out then men should be allowed as well.  Likewise, if women want earrings then men should be allowed earrings as well.  Either both have the option or nobody does.  Pretty simple?
> 
> Nice true equality absent of any stupid cultural and societal biases.



Her Majesty's Danish Armed Forces has very relaxed regulations. Beards are permitted for anyone, hair is not required to be kept short. I met a Danish Combat Engineer, he had a thick red beard and long hair tied back in a single braid. He was also jacked as hell. Looked pretty awesome too.


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Seriously....I am waiting for the day that the military goes back to being ADULTS.  Since the mid-80's the Canadian military has increasingly expanded a philosophy of treating its members more like children than adults, and as a result, they have begun acting like children and not taking responsibility for their actions.



That day is still in the future, but I think it may actually happen.

There was a mid 80s trend "maximum supervision" thing - in other words micro manage.


----------



## Loachman (5 Oct 2016)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> There was a mid 80s trend "maximum supervision" thing - in other words micro manage.



I do not remember being overly-supervised or micro-managed in the 1980s. I see an awful lot of that now, though, thanks mainly to modern technology. That was supposed to make life easier, not to enable commanders to do the job of subordinates one or two levels down.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (5 Oct 2016)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> Her Majesty's Danish Armed Forces has very relaxed regulations. Beards are permitted for anyone, hair is not required to be kept short. I met a Danish Combat Engineer, he had a thick red beard and long hair tied back in a single braid. He was also jacked as hell. Looked pretty awesome too.



They also have kickass soldiers, worthy of their Viking reputation.  Meanwhile in Canada, I get a Staph Infection on my face and have every Tom, Dick and Harry asking where my beard chit is.


----------



## mariomike (5 Oct 2016)

Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> Yeah and these sexualized clothing instructions knocked us back into the 1970s...



Last time I wore a CAF uniform was during that decade, as a Reservist. So, it's not for me to comment on what's right for the youth of today. 

But, as far as I am concerned, life back then may not have been as bad as you perhaps might think.

Let's just say they were different times.


----------



## Lightguns (5 Oct 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Last time I wore a CAF uniform was during that decade, as a Reservist. So, it's not for me to comment on the generation of today.
> 
> But, as far as I am concerned, life back then may not have been as bad as you perhaps might think.
> 
> Let's just say they were different times.



All I remember from back then was being asked twice in TO airport to carry the bags of some civie.  Explaining that my summer short sleeve order was the uniform of a member of the military, they looked at me said that the uniform looked like a porter.  Although retired, I am in favor of sufficient bling for soldiers to not look like they are snooping for a tip at airports and train stations.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Oct 2016)

I seem to recollect that during the 60's the West German Army issued hair nets for their soldiers to keep their in vogue long hair neat. Also saw Dutch soldiers with "pageboy" hair style under their berets with hair nets while on leave in Amsterdam in 1968. Got a photo somewhere of that.


----------



## dimsum (5 Oct 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> retired, I am in favor of sufficient bling for soldiers to not look like they are snooping for a tip at airports and train stations.



Don't worry, military members generally don't wear DEU (unless in Ottawa) enough to make the public think they're porters   >


----------



## George Wallace (5 Oct 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I seem to recollect that during the 60's the West German Army issued hair nets for their soldiers to keep their in vogue long hair neat. Also saw Dutch soldiers with "pageboy" hair style under their berets with hair nets while on leave in Amsterdam in 1968. Got a photo somewhere of that.



Early '80's, in the Bahn 41 Dutch mess, soldier at bar with hair down to their ass.  Turns around and has beard.  Another Heineken down range.


----------



## Lightguns (5 Oct 2016)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Don't worry, military members generally don't wear DEU (unless in Ottawa) enough to make the public think they're porters   >



Never thought about that, but I really liked travelling out of uniform on the military dime!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Oct 2016)

Nothing wrong with a little hair.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dyl0j3WU6Y

 ;D

And see the actual USN LSO's in this scene from the Final Countdown, at 1 min. 10 sec. That was actually accepted hair styles in the USN in the 70's. I don't think it would pass today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4bshTKiwYc

More seriously, however, I disagree that having "different" clothing or dress instructions for men and women is either proof of backwardness on the part of the CF or that "desexualized" instructions are something whose time has come.

I have many reasons for believing this to be the case:

1- Even though we live in "our" world, our members must also spend their private life in the society in general. We cannot ask for our female members to wear "men's" haircuts that, while found in society from time to time are even today the rare exception to what is generally worn by women in the Canadian public. To do so, would expose them to attracting attention to themselves in public. So they should be allowed to wear short haircuts if they wish (already the case) but should also be allowed to wear haircuts close to the lenght generally found in society, which is also already the case in the regulation.

2- As representatives of the state, we are required to project a good image in public. This means reasonably conservative dressing in public. A good test for this is what is generally accepted as business dress in society. And as of right now, our dress standards are pretty well in line with what is acceptable and done in society, including the difference between men and women dress and deportment.

This doesn't mean that some changes couldn't be done.

For instance, headdress: In the Navy, as an example, the ball cap and berets are already similar, why not the service cap too? If you look at cruise ships and merchant ships where officers wear caps, they use the same for men and women. This logic IMHO could apply to the Army and Air Force too - especially as they are moving to beret and/or wedge caps only.


Another instance would be longer haircuts/beards for men. It is perfectly acceptable for men to wear those in society, why not in uniform? I would only make exception for actual operational deployments, where short cuts and no beard could still be the rule.

Also, small studs and hearings, together with light make up is accepted for men today in business attire, so again here, some modification could be done for personnel not deployed operationally that would be in line with what is acceptable in society. Again, same rule for all operationally deployed: none of it.

Finally, as regards women uniforms, I personally would have no problem with the elimination of the skirts from the available attires (and my wife who served for 15 years wholeheartedly hated the damn things, which she only appreciated on those rare 30 degrees/100% humidity days). Considering the limited number of times we dress in CF these days, it would not be a great loss.

However, this doesn't mean adopting a single uniform (male pattern) for  all. The blouse should remain. In society today, business attire does not include male shirts or suits for women. Besides, no matter what, you would need two different cuts: the human body has not changed and men and women do not have the same usual body shape. We can't change that, except for loose fitting clothing such as the operational dress.


----------



## mariomike (5 Oct 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> All I remember from back then was being asked twice in TO airport to carry the bags of some civie.  Explaining that my summer short sleeve order was the uniform of a member of the military, they looked at me said that the uniform looked like a porter.



Sorry to hear that.

I would have been so used to lifting and carrying the civies of TO _themselves_  on my career job that I would likely not have remembered such an insult 40 years later.  

Not to say one generation is better or worse than the other, just different.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Oct 2016)

Coffee_psych said:
			
		

> A few of you have mentioned that the military is known to lag behind.   I am hoping that the military will be setting the precedent in a few years.  When human rights are upheld, seriously, and with respect, that's all that is needed to rise above.  Like the four major components of being successful in the army: Courage, Integrity, Loyalty, and Duty.
> 
> If we work hard, and aren't lazy, we will get so much further.
> 
> Yeah and these sexualized clothing instructions knocked us back into the 1970s...



A few comments:

1.  You say 'we' and 'us'.  I recommend not including yourself in the "we" "us" stuff;  you've never served a day in the CAF.  

2.  "human rights" stuff.  The dress regs allow for accommodations for things like gender, religion, first nations, etc.  Do some homework before you haul out the wide brush.  The people in the CAF aren't ''gender-neutral", so not sure how you expect things like dress instructions to be.  

3.  The message that was attempted to be delivered was poorly constructed and worded, but there was elements of the intended message that were valid;  the chosen words were from the 'daft' category.  

 :2c:


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Oct 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> They also have kickass soldiers, worthy of their Viking reputation.  Meanwhile in Canada, I get a Staph Infection on my face and have every Tom, Dick and Harry asking where my beard chit is.



And sailors too, was really impressed with their Viking crew on the NATO with us.  Love the Danes.


----------



## dimsum (5 Oct 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> For instance, headdress: In the Navy, as an example, the ball cap and berets are already similar, why not the service cap too? If you look at cruise ships and merchant ships where officers wear caps, they use the same for men and women.



The USN is actually doing that right now; female Chiefs and Officers can wear the male peaked cap, and NCMs can wear the Dixie Cup hat.  Also, USN females will be wearing the male "square rig" uniforms and high-collar whites in the next few years.

https://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/10/09/sweeping-uniform-changes-emphasize-gender-neutrality/73602238/


----------



## Lightguns (6 Oct 2016)

Do we have all that much female clothing left in the military?  In my day every but combats was different for women, even the colour of their "Greens" was lighter, their shirt collars rounded instead pointed, oxfords with a heel, etc.  I can only think of tunics, Navy bowler hats, skirts and dress shoes as being different now.  I see no issue in females wearing the forage cap, cops do.  Ban skirts and eliminate the oxford for both and go with low boot for all (including the officers).  This leave only tunics to be phased in with new female sizes.  No new gear just new dress regs.  Mess kit, wear what you buy!

The religious crap is a horse of another colour, I doubt you will ever re-secularize the military again in a multi tribe country like Canada.


----------



## Lumber (6 Oct 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> For instance, headdress: In the Navy, as an example, the ball cap and berets are already similar, why not the service cap too? If you look at cruise ships and merchant ships where officers wear caps, they use the same for men and women. This logic IMHO could apply to the Army and Air Force too - especially as they are moving to beret and/or wedge caps only.



IAW with the latest Naval Dress Committee minutes, females will now have the option of wearing either the Peaked Cap or the Bowler. Their initial issue will remain as the Bowler, however.

Men are still restricted to the Peaked Cap... unfortunately... ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Oct 2016)

I find it interesting that most of the female MARS Officers of a certain age that I know prefer the bowler cap.

The younger ones seem ambivalent.


----------



## Lumber (6 Oct 2016)

When the decision came out, I spoke to a few of them, and the consensus was not that they wanted to wear the Peaked Cap, but that they didn't want to wear the Bowler. Letting them wear the peaked cap didn't fix their original issue.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Oct 2016)

And what is their original issue? They don't want to wear a hat? (So they don't become bald like all old MARS officers  [?)


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Oct 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> When the decision came out, I spoke to a few of them, and the consensus was not that they wanted to wear the Peaked Cap, but that they didn't want to wear the Bowler. Letting them wear the peaked cap didn't fix their original issue.



Beat me to it OGBD.


----------



## FSTO (6 Oct 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And what is their original issue? They don't want to wear a hat? (So they don't become bald like all old MARS officers  [?)



What is wrong with letting the women wear a beret?

Maybe everyone should wear a shapeless loose fitting moo moo like Homer Simpson.

cheap and easy to wear!


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Oct 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Maybe everyone should wear a shapeless loose fitting moo moo like Homer Simpson judges and many lawyers.


FTFY with an already fixed precedent  >


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Oct 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And what is their original issue? They don't want to wear a hat? (So they don't become bald like all old MARS officers  [?)



The issue, as I (being a male, probably imperfectly) understand it is: female personnel in the RCN want a hat that fits properly and will stay on in most weather conditions, given the average female hair style (understanding that this varies wildly from mid back length hair to close cropped). Those who wear their hair in a bun, state that the forage cap will not fit properly over the bun.

To me, the solution is obvious: ships are inherently dangerous places. Everyone who serves on a ship should have short hair....<ducks>


----------



## dapaterson (6 Oct 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> To me, the solution is obvious: ships are inherently dangerous places. Everyone who serves on a ship should have short hair....<ducks>



Whenever I see an individual in the RCN uniform with a particularly full beard, my immediate thought is "Gee, it's been a long time since you went to sea..."


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Oct 2016)

:goodpost:





			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Whenever I see an individual in the RCN uniform with a particularly full beard, my immediate thought is "Gee, it's been a long time since you went to sea..."


 :nod:


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Oct 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Whenever I see an individual in the RCN uniform with a particularly full beard, my immediate thought is "Gee, it's been a long time since you went to sea..."



You could probably add 'wanna be Pioneers' to that list


----------



## a_majoor (7 Oct 2016)

I suppose this has been said many times before, but the "why" we have dress regulations in the first place is to set us apart as a standardized and uniform military force, rather than a bunch of people in uniforms (I believe we have the guild of foresters of something like that to cover off the dress-up part).

To quash all the moaning and bitching, I would simply suggest that every person in the forces today be told to don their IPE and then be inspected to see if their (accoutrement/hairstyle/clothing) of choice interferes with the wearing and operational use of the kit. This includes CBRN protective gear, arctic gear and being able to use rifles, comms gear and other operational issue kit. Can't put on the helmet? Respirator doesn't seal? Looks like you, troop, better sort out what is interfering with the proper operational use of kit, or look for another line of work since *we* cannot afford self inflicted casualties.

Social Justice Warriors should be told to sod off, since this is operational necessity, and the ones who bitch and complain the most can always be invited to come and try on the kit in a gas hut, so they can understand what it is they are complaining about.

My $0.02


----------



## chrisf (7 Oct 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Social Justice Warriors should be told to sod off, since this is operational necessity, and the ones who ***** and complain the most can always be invited to come and try on the kit in a gas hut, so they can understand what it is they are complaining about.
> 
> My $0.02



So if the long haired freaky people pass the fit test, what then?


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Oct 2016)

Not a Sig Op said:
			
		

> So if the long haired freaky people pass the fit test, what then?



They become signalers and we keep them in a dark room for their entire careers, of course


----------



## chrisf (7 Oct 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> They become signalers and we keep them in a dark room for their entire careers, of course



Might as well, already a lot of weirdos in the trade.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Oct 2016)

Like the observant Prince George, perhaps we should be listening a bit more to our kids: 

Gender clothing completely shut down by an 8 year old.


----------



## Coffee_psych (27 Oct 2016)

@George Wallace, I liked that video a lot, thank you .


----------



## mariomike (19 Dec 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I wish that the mom would have went to the Air Cadet Corp directly and voiced her concern over the directive instead of running to the media.



Military probe finds 'unacceptable language' in cadet dress-code pamphlets
http://www.680news.com/2016/12/19/military-probe-finds-unacceptable-language-in-cadet-dress-code-pamphlets-2/
The language came to light when a mother complained her 13-year-old daughter was given the brochure at the 510 Lions Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron in St. John’s.


----------

