Updated Army Service Dress project

[dapaterson]

LCF = Look Cool Factor

 

[frixiedust]

So you watched someone pass the test, but still wanted them removed?

The increased number of failures of the FORCE test when it was initially released kinda indicates that the standard was raised for some.

I watched people who "exempted" the EXPRES test struggle and fail the BFT, and watched people who could crush the BFT fail the EXPRES test.

My experience is that people who love to shit on fitness standards tend to be people who love fitness, or have a very specific vision of what a "proper" CAF members looks like. It often has little to do with people's ability to do the job.

I managed to exempt the EXPRES during BMQ, but it was just slightly past the exempt, and it was on the second go later in training. I did, however, do well on the BFT. I am built for carrying things, and a heavy ruck over 13k was a nice walk. I had to drag a dude who was about 195lbs plus kit because I was 175lbs (and a size 10 pant, so not a huge person). All the other women dragged someone smaller. When we did the warrior challenge in week 10, I lapped people during the stretcher carry even though I didn't run as quickly as they did during morning PT. The FORCE test was a great change for me because I was finally doing a test that showcased my strength instead of rewarding gazelles who can do a bunch of situps. At BMQ, I watched a pack-a-day smoker run an 11 on the EXPRES. And the woman who got our fitness award did the same number of push-ups as I did and one more sit-up (I would like to note she was not endowed with a large bosom, and I was sporting a H-cup and two bras to deal with them). She ran a 9.5 on the EXPRES and I didn't. She also nearly fell out of the 13k ruck more than a few times, and I did better on the warrior challenge than she did. So, what makes fitness in the CAF? Clearly, we all have different skills. She was going to be an RMS clerk, and I was going to be a secret squirrel. Did the EXPRES really matter to either of our jobs? Or was it just a way to shame some for having certain body proportions and reward others?

 

[frixiedust]

Systemic oppression of women masquerading as protection?

Enloe (2000) does mention this in a way. To manage masculinity, the military must also manage femininity. And when the US was designing the WAC uniforms, there was conscious thought about how to ensure the women didn't look too feminine and glamourous because glamour was thought to be too close to loose morals, and to make sure they didn't look too masculine as to be thought butch and queer. So, Victorian morality infused the uniforms to make sure men were men, women were women, and no one was anything other than straight.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Have you read the dress instructions? It's certainly supposed to make a statement:

1. A military force’s uniform is an outward symbol of its commitment, identity and ethos. Coupled with overall appearance, the uniform is the most powerful visual expression of pride by the individual service member, and is the primary means by which the public image of the CAF is fashioned. <--that's an intentional word there.​

4. ...As items and orders shall be designed for wear by the total CAF population, differences in body morphology shall be given appropriate consideration in detailed design and tailoring.​

​

In history, uniforms have been absolutely about fashion. The dress uniforms have been about conveying status, power, authority, rank, and any other number of identities beyond those "issued" by the military. They have often considered the fashion of the day, which is why some uniforms had tight pants and others had baggier ones; it's why some jackets are double-breasted, others single, others buttoned, others toggled. Clothing is entirely about fashion.

The key thing about the "one uniform, one standard" argument is that it is based on a presumption of all things being equal, which is only possible in the homogenised straight, white, man's military (and that's not even that homogenous given how different men's bodies can be in height, weight, and musculature). The idea behind "one uniform, one standard" is the same idea behind meritocracy (that things should be based on merit is problematic because it assumes only the credentials of exactly alike people and ignores the strengths and merits brought by diversity of thought, experience, and perspective especially of those from the margins), and it's based on the idea that the standard is and should be the one determined by a select few. That select few are not the majority, they are not neutral.

Also, "one uniform" smacks of unification talk, a thing that so rankled some senior officers that they resigned over the uniforms being the same across the elements! See "Unification" at the link. That was back when no one thought about women's bodies much let alone anyone not identifying as either man or woman. So, no. There should not be one uniform.

One uniform, one standard refers to each job. It means looking the same as every soldier/sailor in the same jobs you. It doesn’t necessarily mean the whole CAF it means if you are a Stoker you all wear the same uniform and have same standard, if you are a Infanteer you have the same uniform (at least within the regiment) and same fitness standards.

It doesn’t presume that everyone is equal, it presumes that everyone should be treated equally and if you are unable to meet the standard you shouldn’t be doing the job.

I really don’t care what sex, or sexuality or nationality you have/your heritage is. I care if you’re able to do the same job as the other person beside you. If it means certain groups have a tougher time meeting the standard, that sucks but life isn’t fair and war is even less so.

You're not taking a full equality stance. You're saying the standard should be only one thing, which ignores a plethora of other factors. Fun fact: The FORCE test that so many like to denounce does in fact have a lot of common features to things we actually do in the CAF. When deployed on a Navy ship, I had to carry 40lb bags regularly during storing ship. Dragging a body using red straps is exactly how we learned to pull someone out of a smoky area in low-to-no visibility during NETP. The only thing you don't do on ship is the rushes because it's pointless. We repeatedly see the CAF sent out on domestic ops that require building sandbag walls and moving equipment. So, if that 380lb guy can do the tasks we do, why shouldn't he be employed? No one is asking him to storm the beaches because that's likely not his job.

Now before you go all "Rifleman first" I'll let you know that what I was a sigint, during my soldier qualification the combat arms MCpl told everyone "You all need to know this because you may have to be out on patrols with the combat arms or supporting in other ways....except you <frixie's last name>, you just get the check in the box." When others protested, "why does <frixie> only need a check in the box?!" the Jack replied, "I don't know what Comm Research does, but it's not shooting a weapon. They don't do this stuff". That was his experience in Afghanistan where some people in some trades do a specific type of job that rarely, if ever, puts them in contact. So, not everyone needs to be able to charge the beaches. We all need to know how to handle weapons and do drills (PLQ reinforces this, too), so soldier first is still a thing, and it's not the same as rifleman first. If you think it is, then that's exactly why you think the one correct standard is your standard.

I was Army and Navy, I got to experience both worlds.

That 380lb guy couldn’t do the job needed, and that is my point about the standards being too low. They couldn’t go and work where they needed to as they were physically too weak and physically too fat to fit where they needed to work. Not to mention being 380lbs on a ship puts everyone else at risk for dealing with them in the event of a injury or disaster. Can you carry a 380lb man through a ship effectively? I doubt very many people would be able to.

As to your support trades not needing any combat skills Ukraine has shown that fighting a serious enemy means anywhere can become the front line at any time. Not being prepared for that means people will die if put in that situation. I would rather overtrained and hopefully not needed than undertrained and dead.

And as to your comment about not taking a full equality stance, you are wrong. Equality means treating everyone the same. I just don’t take a equity stance. Everyone should be given the chance to meet the standard, but if you can’t thats life.

 

[frixiedust]

No. Just no conscious thought as to how the uniform cut would actually work in the real world.

Oddly enough, there's a lot more thought going into uniforms, just not the kind of thought we who end up wearing think should be in it. Functionality doesn't seem to make it in.

I have to take a moment to gripe about the "women's" Oxford. It's the kind of shoe that makes you think no one expected women to walk anywhere in it. The heel back is low, so my foot pops out the back. My spouse has the same issue, as do many other women I know. The sole is practically flat across, so we don't get the little height boost to our stature that the men's Oxford gives. It's also soft rubber, so I expect it helps women (who barely walk in these crap shoes) walk softly and quietly as opposed to the men's that makes a bit of a click on tile floors. They polish for crap because there's no toe cap that lends itself to holding polish. But the men's is too steep in the top, so it digs into the front at the tongue. And the SWAT patent leather ones are not very comfortable, so that's not an option. Rant over.

 

[dapaterson]

Most CAF footwear seems designed by podiatrists to ensure future business through VAC claims.

 

[lenaitch]

As an outsider, I used to find this discussion interesting. I no longer do.

I get it; I'm white, I'm male, everything is my fault.

Wow, evil English imperialism must have been powerful stuff. It has even driven countries who were never colonized to follow their lead.

Japan



South Korea

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes, we are all still colonisers. That's not going to change anytime soon. And yes, I did know that the boots are the Strathcona Boot.

My point was that it isn't surprising for the RCMP to have the same struggles with uniforms that the CAF does since they come from a shared history. The RCMP being born from a military unit comprised of a paramilitary police force means they will have the same legacy as the rest of the CAF. So, I was simply saying that it's not a surprise.

I am certain many women in the RCMP would not want to give up the serge. I never said it doesn't look sharp. I love watching the Musical Ride here in Ottawa. It's skill and precision and impressive. But I still can acknowledge that it has some problematic history. As I mentioned to another user, I've been engaging with Sathnam Sanghera's Empireworld in addition to some scholars on militarism, feminism, and pedagogy as I work through my degree and thesis. What might emerge is that we may not be able to undo the imperialist impacts of colonialism, but what we do going forward matters. Rather than maintaining the same old thing, maybe reimagine it, modernise it, take the things that aren't problematic and go forth from there? Enloe (2004) says that patriarchy is adaptable because it gets women to participate in ways that make them feel safe and valued when it's really just another way to keep the status quo. We think as women that we've reached some type of equality when we look like the men, but that's not true. It's assimilation into the machine. I'm as guilty of it as I am critical of it. That's the real struggle.

It's great they get to decide the fit of their uniforms now from an operational standpoint. But conflating operational and ceremonial or dress attire is not useful. They serve different functions, so they need to be assessed on different criteria.

I prefer the British Empire to the Mughal or Songhee or Ming Empires.

Or the Soviet for that matter.

 

[frixiedust]

Most of the Cpl Underground I have had interactions with are chomping at the bit to get the new ones.

It has the LCF in spades, and it also promises to be a pretty galactic leap in comfort, both due to better sizing and materials.

I think most RSMs and senior leaders are hesitant, if only to make sure we get it right the first time.

Most of the push back I hear is from folks who will never have this affect them personally; so naturally, they are the loudest dissenters of the bunch.

I will be in this new DEU. It affects me. I'm not impressed with the design. Even with better materials or sizing, I expect some issues to remain.

I hate the belt. I don't look good in a belt the same way I wouldn't look good in the double-breasted tunic (that and the bowler hat made me certain I didn't want Navy). I am blessed with long legs and long arms, but I am not blessed with a tall torso. A belt that is supposed to sit at the waist is practically under-bust support for me. I hated that damn drawstring in the combats for this reason. I am doubtful that there's a size and cut of these tunics that will put the belt in a proper location. Also, sometimes a belt around the middle makes a torso look shorter, and I don't need that.

I like the colour. If we're trying to connect to the new CADPAT and CA colour schemes, it works. I presume when people complain about the current DEU material's comfort, they mean it feels stiff or scratchy. That's part of being winter-weight material and being gabardine. If we get a lighter DEU that doesn't act like a sauna suit in moderate to slightly warm weather, that's an improvement.

I am near certain that stupid nylon liner will still be in the women's pants. I have no idea why we have it, but the men's pants don't. I can make guesses or assumptions that it has to do with the pants being too scratchy against our skin, or some relic of the days when women wore a slip under the skirt. Whatever reason, it causes heat rash and sweating in warmth and chaffing and chill in the cold weather. I always cut it out of the pants just like we cut the liner out of the beret. The current men's pants have some type of facing on the front pockets that the women's pants don't have. I'm not sure what purpose that serves unless it's because designers expect men to use their pockets and don't expect women to.

I am interested to see how this uniform looks on me, but I'm not holding my breath for any miracles. I am looking forward to putting my army blue beret back on.

 

[frixiedust]

I am also looking forward to the brown Oxfords, brown leather gloves, and the much needed departure from ridiculous gold insignia.

Brown Oxfords? But my black ones are already so shiny. Dammit. Is that really a thing? It looks like the concepts have black still.

 

[frixiedust]

And yet, even when we achieve the impossible and choose the same kind of 'hat'...

View attachment 96194

And everyone you meet in any of these same kinds of hats will shape it differently. The most individualistic in the whole CAF is the army that screams "but we must all be the same!"

 

[dapaterson]

Why not both?

View attachment 96252

This is obviously photoshopped. He should be wearing a leather jacket.

 

[frixiedust]

Although I agree that changes made in the last few years was unnecessary and made to please a few, still don't get the S1-S3 system , I am curious what law you refer to when stating legal ranks?

What's not to understand about S3-S1? They are simply the English versions of the French ranks. From matelot 3e to matelot 1e to matelot-chef becomes Sailor 3rd class, 2nd class, 1st class, Master Sailor. I'm sure the only reason it hasn't been updated in the QR&Os has to do with someone needing to actually look at that and realise it needs to change.