• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Desexualized clothing instructions fail for gender specific directions

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.
 
George Wallace said:
You are still missing the circumstances and context.

Chrzest_r%C3%B3wnikowy_4.JPG


and all that goes with ship's/unit's moral.
You were saving that photo for JUST this moment, weren't you?
 
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
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

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

A letter outlining the dress code for young people interested in joining a Newfoundland air cadets squadron is offensive and "completely unacceptable," Canada's defence minister said Friday after learning that the document referred to girls' breasts as "developing bits."

Harjit Sajjan issued the blunt statement after a parent complained about a leaflet handed out recently by the 510 Lions Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron in St. John's.

A photo of the document provided by the military shows it outlines what the squadron considers appropriate civilian dress for cadets and lists the Four Bs: "boobs, belly, bums, boxers," going on to say that girls should wear shirts that do not "reveal their developing bits."

"This kind of language and the attitudes it represents are completely unacceptable in the cadets, in the Canadian Armed Forces and in our society," Sajjan said. "This shaming of young women is offensive to me as a person, as a father, and as the Minister of National Defence. It is completely inappropriate."

The strongly worded condemnation comes after the mother of a 13-year-old girl revealed the letter and told the CBC she believed it sexualized young girls and imposed different standards on them than their male counterparts.

The document also spells out guidelines for acceptable hair, makeup and body piercings.

Canada's top soldier, Gen. Jonathan Vance, also criticized the leaflet and said he would try to make sure materials distributed by cadet organizations show more respect to members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

"While we expect all cadets to dress appropriately and professionally, this letter used language that is completely unacceptable and not in keeping with Operation Honour," he said in a statement.

"This document does not reflect the high standard expected of the program. To the members of the 510 Lions and their parents, please accept my personal apologies."

The squadron did not respond to a request for comment.

Brig.-Gen. Kelly Woiden, commander of the national cadet program, said he has ordered that the document be rescinded and that regional cadet support units determine if they have material that uses similarly offensive language.

Woiden said the guidebook sends a bad message to young girls interested in joining the cadet program, which has about 1,100 squadrons representing 53,000 cadets. He believes it was produced locally as a way to introduce people to the cadet program.

"It's a very sexualized response -- the four Bs is not a vocabulary that we utilize to describe any kind of dress and deportment," he said in an interview form Ottawa, adding that he was trying to contact the officer in charge of the 510 squadron.

"It's not a good message and I find I'm personally a little bit angry at its content."

The revelation comes at a time when the Canadian Forces are stepping up efforts to stamp out what retired justice Marie Deschamps described as an "underlying sexual culture" in the military. In her report in April 2015, she described an environment that was hostile to women and left victims of sexual assault and harassment to fend for themselves. In response, military leaders promised to take immediate action to root out unacceptable behaviour.

Randall Garrison, the NDP defence critic, said the leaflet shows that more work is needed to shift what he called the "sexualized nature" of the military culture.

"Training is offered to all leaders -- including leaders in the reserves -- to help kind of eliminate this kind of approach to problems in the military," he said. "So obviously, somebody either hasn't had the training yet or failed the training."
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/defence-minister-slams-cadet-letter-referring-to-breasts-as-developing-bits-1.3096718
 
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.
 
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"  [:)
 
[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 >:D
 
FSTO said:
Sure, the Naval one! >:D
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.
 
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
 
[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  ???


 
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:


What irks me about this story so to speak is that there's so much crap 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 crap 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  ???

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



 
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. 
 
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
 
Back
Top