Current Dress Regs

[Furniture]

That is fundamentally flawed reasoning I would suggest. Those desiring change should not use adjectives which imply derision to current standards in the process of demanding the status quote defend itself.
Those desiring change should present a clear problem statement with several valid alternative options and an analysis to present the pros and cons of each and then an assessment of the second and third order effects and mitigation.

That’s how the CAF as an institution does change.

So to start what is the problem that wearing headdress outside presents?

The problem is we force people to wear hats that do nothing apart from make people wear hats that are caricatures of functional hats. They serve no functional purpose.

A beret is a fashion statement from an era long past. The wedge is a parade version of a functional field cap. The peak cap is actually a functional hat, if somewhat too formal in the modern ear for most occasions.

If we insist on hats, we should insist on hats that serve a function beyond being a hat for show. If the CAF cared about member's welfare the boonie hat, or a slouch hat would be the standard for summers, with a version of the "Emer Fudd" or "Trapper" hat serving as a winter headdress.

 

[OldSolduer]

The problem is we force people to wear hats that do nothing apart from make people wear hats that are caricatures of functional hats. They serve no functional purpose.

A beret is a fashion statement from an era long past. The wedge is a parade version of a functional field cap. The peak cap is actually a functional hat, if somewhat too formal in the modern ear for most occasions.

If we insist on hats, we should insist on hats that serve a function beyond being a hat for show. If the CAF cared about members welfare the boonie hat, or a slouch hat would be the standard for summers, with a version of the "Emer Fudd" or "Trapper" hat serving as a winter headdress.

Now you've done it Mate.....hats....toques, gloves, raincoats are surely to follow....

 

[dimsum]

The problem is we force people to wear hats that do nothing apart from make people wear hats that are caricatures of functional hats. They serve no functional purpose.

A beret is a fashion statement from an era long past. The wedge is a parade version of a functional field cap. The peak cap is actually a functional hat, if somewhat too formal in the modern ear for most occasions.

If we insist on hats, we should insist on hats that serve a function beyond being a hat for show. If the CAF cared about members welfare the boonie hat, or a slouch hat would be the standard for summers, with a version of the "Emer Fudd" or "Trapper" hat serving as a winter headdress.

Berets were the standard because they were cheaper to produce in WWII.

 

[Furniture]

Berets were the standard because they were cheaper to produce in WWII.

Early war the army rocked wedges..



My great uncle Reuben Gosbee, killed near Cesena Italy in '44.

Note: his "wedge" is the real deal, a fold down field service cap.

 

[Fabius]

Now you've done it Mate.....hats....toques, gloves, raincoats are surely to follow....

Agreed. A pointless debate with no end in sight

 

[RangerRay]

The problem is we force people to wear hats that do nothing apart from make people wear hats that are caricatures of functional hats. They serve no functional purpose.

A beret is a fashion statement from an era long past. The wedge is a parade version of a functional field cap. The peak cap is actually a functional hat, if somewhat too formal in the modern ear for most occasions.

If we insist on hats, we should insist on hats that serve a function beyond being a hat for show. If the CAF cared about member's welfare the boonie hat, or a slouch hat would be the standard for summers, with a version of the "Emer Fudd" or "Trapper" hat serving as a winter headdress.

All the chicks in England were digging the Free French guys with their berets, so the Brits and Canadians followed suit.

At least that’s my theory based on absolutely nothing.

 

[btrudy]

Why would you recommend that change? What are the pros and cons? What are the second and third order effects that you would expect?

Hats cause hat hair, and many people find those hats they're expected to wear to be either uncomfortable, ugly, or some combination thereof. Sometimes it's nice to let the wind run through your hair / across your scalp. Allowing the person to chose whether or not to wear it will allow each individual to maximize their own personal comfort.

Letting people tailor their experience to their preferences will be, well, preferable compared to a mandated solution that only fits some of the audience. I mean, that's essentially the basic principle behind all my arguments here. Give people a choice and they'll pick something that works best for them.

And if allowing this choice doesn't actually hurt anything, you should do so.

 

[Maxman1]

The problem is we force people to wear hats that do nothing apart from make people wear hats that are caricatures of functional hats. They serve no functional purpose.

A beret is a fashion statement from an era long past. The wedge is a parade version of a functional field cap. The peak cap is actually a functional hat, if somewhat too formal in the modern ear for most occasions.

If we insist on hats, we should insist on hats that serve a function beyond being a hat for show. If the CAF cared about member's welfare the boonie hat, or a slouch hat would be the standard for summers, with a version of the "Emer Fudd" or "Trapper" hat serving as a winter headdress.

Like this?

 

[Lumber]

... please refer above to where I advocated for stricter grooming standards. Dress and deportment are important alongside personal expression; I'm just arguing that it shouldn't be at the expense of.

Dictating how someone wears the uniform and how they groom themselves when they do is all well and good.

And of course if we're specifically worried about shaggy beards at cocktail parties, that seems like a moot point because by the regulations the QM should, since they're posted to a sea-going unit, be clean shaven anyways. For actual safety reasons, and not aesthetics.

Ok maybe I need to read through your posts again, but it feels like your arguments are incongruent. On the one hand you do say you don't believe that there should be any dress standards that are not based on operational requirements, and that outside of operational requirements, members should be free to express themselves, but on the other hand, you say that there should be standards of professionalism while in uniform. The problem is that these two positions can conflict, and I think it stems from your own personal understanding of what "operational necessity" means. You're thinking to "tactical", meaning beards on ship, pink hair while trying to maintain camouflage in the bush, unkept long hair while operating around running machinery, etc. You need to expand your thinking and realize that 99% of the time we aren't actually fighting, but we are actually deterring, and as stupid as it may seem, a spit polished military has a much higher "intimidation" effect than a sloppy one. To be clear, I'm not talking about one set of troops intimidating another set of troops from across no man's land, I'm talking about the operational and strategic level effect that can be achieved when the adversary (or allies) think "these guys are the real deal".

Now, from your posts, it seems like you really only have an issue with the arbitrary 1" beard length restriction, and on that point, yea, I can't see having a 2" beard making a big difference, and to that I will say two things. 1. You have to draw the line somewhere. A 2" beard isn't that much "less professional" than a 1" beard, but a 12" wizard bear is. And 2. You kind of invited this on yourself because instead of attacking that one specific restriction, you've been speaking very generally, which is where my counter-arguments are really directed.

 

[Fabius]

Hats cause hat hair, and many people find those hats they're expected to wear to be either uncomfortable, ugly, or some combination thereof. Sometimes it's nice to let the wind run through your hair / across your scalp. Allowing the person to chose whether or not to wear it will allow each individual to maximize their own personal comfort.

Letting people tailor their experience to their preferences will be, well, preferable compared to a mandated solution that only fits some of the audience. I mean, that's essentially the basic principle behind all my arguments here. Give people a choice and they'll pick something that works best for them.

And if allowing this choice doesn't actually hurt anything, you should do so.

What changes will be needed for your proposal in terms of how the CAF salutes officers?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Letting people tailor their experience to their preferences will be, well, preferable compared to a mandated solution that only fits some of the audience. I mean, that's essentially the basic principle behind all my arguments here. Give people a choice and they'll pick something that works best for them.

And if allowing this choice doesn't actually hurt anything, you should do so.

What about letting CAF members wear civilian clothes to work if they want? Some CAF members are embarrassed about the recent scandals and wearing a uniform negatively impacts their mental health and self-image. Wearing civilian clothes when they want would afford them an opportunity to tailor their experience in the CAF while expressing their sense of identity. Some units already authorized members in civilian clothing, albeit for different reasons.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

What changes will be needed for your proposal in terms of how the CAF salutes officers?

Paying compliments to one group of individuals over another? Not very inclusive.

 

[Edward Campbell]

That was the norm many decades ago when it was verboten to wear "field" uniforms anywhere but in the field.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Paying compliments to one group of individuals over another? Not very inclusive.

A practice originating from a racist colonial power whose hierarchy is steeped in patriarchy. Visible minorities shouldn't have to show submissive behavior to someone "of a higher rank".

 

[Remius]

That was the norm many decades ago when it was verboten to wear "field" uniforms anywhere but in the field.

Service dress all the time except the field. That would kill morale more than any self “expression” issues.

 

[Rifleman62]

Watched my oldest Daughter graduate from Trent U yesterday. Only one grad had coloured hair (just at the front). Everyone grads and audience were clean cut and neat. A few beards.

 

[RangerRay]

Service dress all the time except the field. That would kill morale more than any self “expression” issues.

Which is why garrison dress was created!

 

[Edward Campbell]

Service dress all the time except the field. That would kill morale more than any self “expression” issues.

I recall being the orderly officer - blue patrols and Sam Browne with sword - and "inspecting" the soldier's midday meal: most soldiers were in civvies 'cause only "men under punishment" were 'allowed' to wear black coveralls in the dining hall. We didn't have green combat uniforms until circa 1965 - our 'combat uniform' was black coveralls, boots and putties and 37 pattern web gear.

 

[daftandbarmy]

What about letting CAF members wear civilian clothes to work if they want? Some CAF members are embarrassed about the recent scandals and wearing a uniform negatively impacts their mental health and self-image. Wearing civilian clothes when they want would afford them an opportunity to tailor their experience in the CAF while expressing their sense of identity. Some units already authorized members in civilian clothing, albeit for different reasons.

Ahem... it's known as 'business casual' and some are too fond of that order of dress already as I recall

 

[Jarnhamar]

I recall being the orderly officer - blue patrols and Sam Browne with sword

Out of curiosity was the sword functional or was it for show? Not that you'd start wacking people with it (or maybe...) but I'm just curious if they were technically usable.