Is it time for gendered hair standards to go?

[mariomike]

Hmmm... I hadn't thought about the grievance route...  :nod:

"The Board recommended that the CDS deny the grievance. The CDS concurred."

 

[Jungle]

Hmmm... I hadn't thought about the grievance route...  :nod:

Dude, I think you need to deploy to one of those destinations where hardship has more to do with survival then with hairstyle.
And suffering involves, well... pain !!

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Hmmm... I hadn't thought about the grievance route...  :nod:

That is a bad idea for many reasons.  Seriously. 

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I fully encourage you to challenge the current situation in any way that you can. 

If the regulations are defensible (and I strongly suspect that they are), then the system, as well as all of us in it who currently keeps their locks happily shorn, have nothing to worry about. 

If the regulations are indefensible, then they should change.

I am a firmly believer that questions must be routinely asked and answered, particularly of an institution as turgid and resistant to change as the CF.

 

[hunter22]

Just something I was thinking about on my drive tonight. I am also wondering about the cadets.

1. Is a cadet who joins up subjected to the same hair standards as the CF?

2. (For someone who knows) Are cadets considered to be fully civilian members of the public?

3. Would a male cadet be subject to punishment or denied membership because he refused to cut his hair?

I think these are more questions for a cadet officer if there are any around these forums.

 

[Shamrock]

I fully encourage you to challenge the current situation in any way that you can. 

If the regulations are defensible (and I strongly suspect that they are), then the system, as well as all of us in it who currently keeps their locks happily shorn, have nothing to worry about. 

If the regulations are indefensible, then they should change.

I am a firmly believer that questions must be routinely asked and answered, particularly of an institution as turgid and resistant to change as the CF.

Well put.

Though my initial concern of this complaint would be the waste of manhours, and though on its surface the complaint seems frivolous, we in the CF need to maintain ourselves as a reflection of Canadian ideals and not assert we are above them. So, should it go forward, the ensuing review can either confirm the validity of our regulations in the modern era or bring about the required change.

I personally don't mind the different standards. However, I'm in a position where I don't get less than gentle reminders when my hair is outside of acceptable boundaries.

 

[Alex10370]

Just something I was thinking about on my drive tonight. I am also wondering about the cadets.

1. Is a cadet who joins up subjected to the same hair standards as the CF?

2. (For someone who knows) Are cadets considered to be fully civilian members of the public?

3. Would a male cadet be subject to punishment or denied membership because he refused to cut his hair?

I think these are more questions for a cadet officer if there are any around these forums.

1 -  yes.  hair standards for the Air, Army and Sea Cadets are all the exact same as they are for the military.

2 - Cadets are not considered to be members of the Canadian Forces and are still "civilians" however upon joining, the cadet in question signs a paper essentially stating that he/she will follow all the regulations as set out in the CATOs (Cadet Administrative Trainning Orders) which include dress regulations.

3 - If a cadet were to disobey dress regulations the matter would move up the CoC most likley being eventually taken to his CO who then would have several options at his/her disposal including administrative disipline (writing the cadet up), calling the cadets parents (we are talking about kids as young as 12 after all), suspension from the squadron/corps, and even expulsion from the squadron/corps.  obviously these steps would be taken progressivly; for instance a cadet isnt going to get expelled from cadets for having his hair touching his ears on a parade night, but a cadet who consistently is simply not adhearing to the dress regulations would be punished more and more severely as time went on.


Correct me if im wrong anyone!

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Hunter 22, have the regulations changed since YOU applied to join "THEM"?

 

[dimsum]

So....how about goatees/soul patches?  :stirpot:

 

[hunter22]

Hunter 22, have the regulations changed since YOU applied to join "THEM"?

Sorry I do not understand the question.

 

[hunter22]

1 -  yes.  hair standards for the Air, Army and Sea Cadets are all the exact same as they are for the military.

2 - Cadets are not considered to be members of the Canadian Forces and are still "civilians" however upon joining, the cadet in question signs a paper essentially stating that he/she will follow all the regulations as set out in the CATOs (Cadet Administrative Trainning Orders) which include dress regulations.

3 - If a cadet were to disobey dress regulations the matter would move up the CoC most likley being eventually taken to his CO who then would have several options at his/her disposal including administrative disipline (writing the cadet up), calling the cadets parents (we are talking about kids as young as 12 after all), suspension from the squadron/corps, and even expulsion from the squadron/corps.  obviously these steps would be taken progressivly; for instance a cadet isnt going to get expelled from cadets for having his hair touching his ears on a parade night, but a cadet who consistently is simply not adhearing to the dress regulations would be punished more and more severely as time went on.


Correct me if im wrong anyone!

I find it quite interesting then that the cadets have not had anyone challenge this on human rights grounds. This is clear discrimination on the basis of sex. Anyone with a basic understanding of law could determine that. Cadets is not a 'private' organization, it is very much 'public / government' and directly subject to the Charter, and the CHRA. Interesting!

 

[OldSolduer]

Your complaint is nonsense.

Stop wasting everyone's time and effort, suck it up and get your hair cut.

We have some very good reasons for our standards, first and foremost it is a STANDARD.

Second, shorter hair is lower maintenance. We allow First Nations people their braids, but that is a cultural issue.

Third, an Afro or long biker hair may have difficulty fitting into a Kevlar helmet. Its also hygiene risk and a hazard, long hair etc could get caught in moving parts, or catch on fire.


But do go on, hunter. I'm anxious to see how you make out, sweet pea.

 

[hunter22]

Your complaint is nonsense.

Stop wasting everyone's time and effort, suck it up and get your hair cut.

We have some very good reasons for our standards, first and foremost it is a STANDARD.

Second, shorter hair is lower maintenance. We allow First Nations people their braids, but that is a cultural issue.

Third, an Afro or long biker hair may have difficulty fitting into a Kevlar helmet. Its also hygiene risk and a hazard, long hair etc could get caught in moving parts, or catch on fire.


But do go on, hunter. I'm anxious to see how you make out, sweet pea.

With respect, a 'standard' does not necessarily make something 'legal' or 'right.'

30 years ago, Sikhs couldn't wear turbans, Aboriginals couldn't wear braids and Muslim women in the CF could not wear hijabs. These were 'standards' and they were found to be illegal 'standards' that were not in line with Canadian law.

I am a sweet pea, and hopefully you will see how sweet I can look with my long hair within the next five years. I am sorry to challenge your paradigms.

 

[OldSolduer]

Ok, if you don't like being told what to do, what to wear, where to be and what time to be there, don't join the CF.

This includes grooming standards. I've outlined some reasons why men have their hair standards the way they are, but you sluffed these off as not too important.

This is the way it is, buttercup. We cut our hair.

Period.

 

[my72jeep]

I find it quite interesting then that the cadets have not had anyone challenge this on human rights grounds. This is clear discrimination on the basis of sex. Anyone with a basic understanding of law could determine that. Cadets is not a 'private' organization, it is very much 'public / government' and directly subject to the Charter, and the CHRA. Interesting!

I do believe we had a Charter challenge it was a young MicMac from N.S. who wanted to wear braids for Religious cultural reasons.

 

[brihard]

I find it quite interesting then that the cadets have not had anyone challenge this on human rights grounds. This is clear discrimination on the basis of sex. Anyone with a basic understanding of law could determine that. Cadets is not a 'private' organization, it is very much 'public / government' and directly subject to the Charter, and the CHRA. Interesting!

Trying to equate the cadets to the CF from a legal standpoint is largely fallacious. Civilians are not the C.F., and the C.F. are not civilians.

It's also very apparent that you have much less understanding of how rights law works than you think you do. Your utter disregard of my post earlier where I address this stuff in fair detail is telling.

I'm not surprised that the question 'have the rules changed since YOU joined THEM?' went right over your head.

 

[hunter22]

Ok, if you don't like being told what to do, what to wear, where to be and what time to be there, don't join the CF.

This includes grooming standards. I've outlined some reasons why men have their hair standards the way they are, but you sluffed these off as not too important.

This is the way it is, buttercup. We cut our hair.

Period.

In response to your 'other' reasons for cutting hair.

1. It needs to fit into equipment - there would be a unisex standard that applies to both sexes. If it fits into a kevlar helmet well enough to protect a woman, it probably would for a man as well.

2. Shorter hair is lower maintenance - that is interesting. Women seem to fare just fine. I would say getting haircuts two or more times a month is quite high maintenance as opposed to once every two months.

Your arguments regarding the practicality of long hair are weak and are really beside the point - is there a Charter or CHRA argument in favour of long hair? Yes there is. Would it win? Maybe not, but there is quite clearly an argument that would likely run and is legitimate. With complete respect, many people are simply going with their initial gut reaction to the matter rather than thinking about it critically. It is interesting to read the responses of people who are talking about the legislation and I appreciate them. I am still not sure what route I will take, but I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the argument and my thoughts here.

 

[Scott]

Perfect! Time for me to get a note from the Doc claiming a need for medicinal shrooms, let the hair buck into pigtails to satisfy the native surely hiding in my Acadian ancestry, and tell the first RSM I see to go fuck himself because I'm in need of a "me" day. I can't wait!

While I am in complete agreement with PPCLI Guy's thoughts on the matter, I am also kind of asking "is this one of them high hills to die on"? Or is this more "socks in the mess" type of thing?

I think I'll sleep on it.

 

[OldSolduer]

We have had these standards in place since WW 1. Why change?

Give me your reasons.

 

[hunter22]

Trying to equate the cadets to the CF from a legal standpoint is largely fallacious. Civilians are not the C.F., and the C.F. are not civilians.

It's also very apparent that you have much less understanding of how rights law works than you think you do. Your utter disregard of my post earlier where I address this stuff in fair detail is telling.

I'm not surprised that the question 'have the rules changed since YOU joined THEM?' went right over your head.

I was actually interested in the difference between CF members and the cadets. I think there would be an undeniable argument for male and female cadets to have a single standard. I was surprised that they still have gendered standards which are enforceable by denying membership. Shocking.