# Ponytails and lipstick: Sweeping changes to Army grooming standards are coming



## Kraut783 (Jan 26, 2021)

wow....

"Soldiers of all genders will be allowed to have highlights that blend with uniform colors; women can wear long ponytails during training or even shave their heads if they want; men can wear clear nail polish; and terminology that some may find offensive — such as Mohawk, Fu Manchu and dreadlocks — will be removed from Army regulations"

Ponytails and lipstick: Sweeping changes to Army grooming standards are coming


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 26, 2021)

I'm OK with this.  Anything that anyone is allowed to wear, everyone should be allowed to wear.  Or no one.  Including beards.


----------



## Kaldak (Jan 26, 2021)

No complaints necessarily about the recommendations, but is this representative of the force?



> The panel was made up of 10 Black women, four white women, one Hispanic woman, one Hispanic man and one Black man.


----------



## AWP (Jan 26, 2021)

The AF just made changes to what's acceptable for women's hair while...dismissing changes for men. Whatever.

I work in a squadron that has USAF, Brits, Aussies, Canadians, Danes, Belgians, and Marines. I hate to shock y'all, but that bearded Brit in his shorts is just as good at his job as a clean shaven USAF whatever with sleeves fully down. The Dane or Canadian with a ponytail is just as good as the American rocking a half-assed clump of hair below her hat or the female Marine with the tightest, most perfectly formed "sock bun" history has ever known. Personal thoughts aside, even the Dane with a man bun can do his job (fuck that, it looks stupid, but they can still kick ass in that job).

Working with coalition nations opened my eyes to how...stupid we are with uniform regs.
90-something percent of our military doesn't need the "A BEARD WILL KILL YOU IN AN NBC ENVIRONMENT" argument. If they are concerned about NBC...we're already screwed and headed to the gulag.

Grow a beard, get some shorts, rock a decent hairstyle...just fucking shoot people when we need you to.


----------



## Locksteady (Jan 26, 2021)

Marauder06 said:


> I'm OK with this.  Anything that anyone is allowed to wear, everyone should be allowed to wear.  Or no one.  Including beards.


I am too, though if this was supposed to represent that idea then those look to be some rather half-assed results, though I wouldn't be surprised if there was a monumental effort involved in getting even those few changes through the door.

I also think this gradual approach, while definitely not consistent, may prevent some fallout by preserving some of the cultural integrity of the force in lieu of issuing overnight complete reversals of the policies.

Nonetheless, it is still baffling to see that something like barely collar-length hair (vs. the longer length to which females in the exact same jobs are permitted to grow their hair, and in braids and ponytails even) would still prevent my reenlistment as a male, but clear nail polish and dyed hair of any natural color now pass without a problem.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 26, 2021)

Marauder06 said:


> I'm OK with this.  Anything that anyone is allowed to wear, everyone should be allowed to wear.  Or no one.  Including beards.



Agree....but that won't happen for the average male.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 26, 2021)

If I could grow hair I'd rock the mohawk in a DA photo.  But alas I'm nearer to bald these days.



Kaldak said:


> No complaints necessarily about the recommendations, but is this representative of the force?



Diversity doesn't mean what you think it means brother.


----------



## Brill (Jan 27, 2021)

So We can look like whatever we want, shower wherever We want, bang whomever We want but We can’t say “fucking savages” during a briefing?

Our priorities are out of whack.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 27, 2021)

I disagree with the whole premise of this thread.  

Yes, other nations have different grooming standards, but those standards have been “that way” since jump.

In “our” case, we are not relaxing grooming standards to make better warriors, we are relaxing grooming standards to appease...them. You can decide for yourself who “them” are because they may not be the same to each of us.

Decade after decade “we” are asked/told to accept fundamental changes to the culture of our military; not because it makes better warriors, but because it makes people (them) feel more included and inclusive.

Horse-shit.

Get a g-damn haircut and police that muustash.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jan 27, 2021)

Kaldak said:


> No complaints necessarily about the recommendations, but is this representative of the force?



Representative of the force? Not at all. But these policies were never created by a representative sample of the force to begin with. 
I remember when they did the last changes and had to bring on dermatologists to explain that twists, locks, and braids for black women's hair are some of the best methods for keeping natural hair without chemicals. 



Ooh-Rah said:


> In “our” case, we are not relaxing grooming standards to make better warriors, we are relaxing grooming standards to appease...them. You can decide for yourself who “them” are because they may not be the same to each of us.



The only worthwhile standards in this policy that were "no shit good for health" are the new hair standards. 

Lipstick, nail polish, earrings, and frosted tips?
Removing the words like "mohawk, eccentric, faddish" or even the whole phrase "discretion of the commander"?

Big idea fairy on those.


----------



## Grunt (Jan 27, 2021)

The military needs to keep its focus and not get lost in the weeds. Train for war in every clime and place...everything else is secondary...or so I was told.


----------



## Locksteady (Jan 27, 2021)

Ooh-Rah said:


> In “our” case, we are not relaxing grooming standards to make better warriors, we are relaxing grooming standards to appease...them. You can decide for yourself who “them” are because they may not be the same to each of us.


According to the Sgt. Major in charge of Army uniform policy, these changes were also designed with practicality in mind.  Examples he cited include:
Hair length minimums for females (soldiers fresh out of Ranger or SF training were automatically out of regs).
Ponytails (almost split decision, but limited to physical training and field ops, where buns were known to tip helmets and restrict field of vision).
Nail polish for males (nail protection when working with chemicals).

Do you agree with that part of the rationale for those changes above, and if so, would you support the other changes to grooming standards if they also had materially practical reasons like the above?



Ooh-Rah said:


> Decade after decade “we” are asked/told to accept fundamental changes to the culture of our military; not because it makes better warriors, but because it makes people (them) feel more included and inclusive.


Do you think that, in order to sustain the force amidst chronic recruitment and retention problems, it is more sensible for the brass to focus on things like cosmetic inclusivity, pay raise/benefits increases, and broader marketing to recruit and retain a larger base of recruits and early-to-mid-term servicemembers as an alternative to relaxing the standards for things that more directly impede the health of its force and capacity for carrying out its objectives, such as BMI and minimum PT requirements?


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 27, 2021)

Damn...the next thing you know they'll let people put their hands in their pockets,

I read a book some time ago about the history and evolution of the military uniforms, and it had a chapter about 'grooming'.  The short hair and beards came about as a way to combat lice and vermin, and just stuck.  I mean, the Navy allowed beards as recently as the 70s.

Me, IDGAF as long as the person can do the job, regardless of how weird I think they look.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 27, 2021)




----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 27, 2021)

I remember when Sergeant Major of the Army Chandler instituted a tattoo policy that required leaders to photograph every tattoo that was visible on a solder when they were in PTs.  Great fucking times.  Talk about something that was pretty unenforceable.  We did take photos in my unit btw.



Brill said:


> So We can look like whatever we want, shower wherever We want, bang whomever We want but We can’t say “fucking savages” during a briefing?
> 
> Our priorities are out of whack.



Honestly, I hope this removes the amount of EO complaints black females are able to make against their first Sergeants and Sergeants Major who were literally just enforcing the standard.  

Also, with a lot of trash in this policy, it's like they knew Biden would be president because he lifted the ban on trans soldiers.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 27, 2021)

Edited to add, that's not me.  Even I am not that old lol (Navy corpsman circa late 60s,  Vietnam).


----------



## Gunz (Jan 27, 2021)

.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 27, 2021)

This continues to prove to me that the SMA's have fuck all to do.  Every single one of them fucks with grooming standards or uniforms.  Maybe spend more time with the troops.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 27, 2021)

Gunz said:


> The 70's beards on swabjockeys was Adm Zumwalt's relaxation of standards so all the sailors could look like Austin Powers. We thought they all looked like a bunch of derelict slobs.
> 
> If you ever have to fight in a hot, humid, filthy environment, and you can't get a haircut when you want to, you're going to miss that high n tight. Short hair makes sense in many environments.



The Navy had allowed them, often unofficially, for eons.  Sub guys frequently sported deployment beards.  But I agree the mission and environment should always dictate what is and is not good to go.

Edited to add WRT "hot, humid, filthy environment," that also sounds a bit like the mid-east.  It was fucking retarded to be outside the wire for days and be told "you are unsat" because hair touched one's ear.  me, I have always--always--had short hair, so it was never my fight.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 27, 2021)

\


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 27, 2021)

Locksteady said:


> Do you agree with that part of the rationale for those changes above, and if so, would you support the other changes to grooming standards if they also had materially practical reasons like the above?


No.  




Devildoc said:


> Damn...the next thing you know they'll let people put their hands in their pockets,


No.




Locksteady said:


> Do you think that, in order to sustain the force amidst chronic recruitment and retention problems, it is more sensible for the brass to focus on things like cosmetic inclusivity,


No.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 27, 2021)

We actually don't have chronic recruitment problems.  The problem? Every Administration, usually coincides with the color of their political party wants something completely different.  The only time it was semi-close in the last 30 years was before Sept-11th when Rumsfeld began the re-design of the Army and then continued that re-design in the middle of two conflicts that occurred at the same time.  

Then we had three force cuts under the Obama administration, but he also surged in Afghanistan increasing OPTEMPO.  Then we did Syria, then we went back into Iraq.  While still cutting the Force. 

Under Trump those cuts got reversed and we began a second grow the army initiative...oh but guess what, Biden is going to cut the Force Structure too and likely increase operational tempo. 

It's a cyclical effect that was talked about in the West Wing btw.  

None of this has to do with grooming standards though.  Just addressing the red herring of recruitment problems tied to grooming standards.


----------



## Dame (Jan 27, 2021)

Hmmmm. Thinking of starting a new enterprise selling sports bras in VERY large sizes to soldiers in need of a "lift."


----------



## Cookie_ (Jan 27, 2021)

ThunderHorse said:


> Honestly, I hope this removes the amount of EO complaints black females are able to make against their first Sergeants and Sergeants Major who were literally just enforcing the standards.



I understand the idea that there were EO complaints because they "enforced the standards", but I've also literally seen a 1SG take a ruler to all our black females hair (not anyone else though) and demand counselings for their hair being 1/4 inch out of regs.

These hair style/length are good. I can even understand the nail polish thing.

Lipstick, earrings, and frosted tips are worthless though.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 30, 2021)




----------



## Gunz (Jan 30, 2021)

Ooh-Rah said:


> No.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This man is a Marine.

The rest of you fucking metrosexuals, three inches on top, evenly graduated on the sides and back, feet at a 45 degree angle, thumbs on the seams of the trousers, eyes on the bulkhead and square your scuzzy civilian asses away until you are able to maintain proper military alignment and a constant state of combat readiness.

Carry on, I’ll be in the company area all afternoon.


----------



## GOTWA (Feb 3, 2021)

Devildoc said:


> View attachment 38660
> 
> Edited to add, that's not me.  Even I am not that old lol (Navy corpsman circa late 60s,  Vietnam).



That's @Brill


----------



## Brill (Feb 3, 2021)

GOTWA said:


> That's @Brill



(Digs through old pics) I have a better one somewhere.


----------



## AWP (Feb 3, 2021)

We currently have Tormund Giantsbane on station. I doubt his impressive beard or height/weight standards affect his ability to do his job.

Side note: whenever I see him I picture a guy stepping off a longship headed towards an English monastery for some of that sweet pillage, rape, and arson action.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 3, 2021)

AWP said:


> We currently have Tormund Giantsbane on station. I doubt his impressive beard or height/weight standards affect his ability to do his job.
> 
> Side note: whenever I see him I picture a guy stepping off a longship headed towards an English monastery for some of that sweet pillage, rape, and arson action.


Canada and our own Indian heritage troops have proven the beard/NBC argument invalid ad nauseam, and it boils down to don't look trashbad in uniform. Make it a commander approval thing at the lowest level, like the... Brits? do for their Navy?  6 months to try to grow a decent beard, if you are prepubescent then you get to shave for a few years and then try again.


----------

