Since our newest gender issues thread is largely a pointless snarkfest, even by CFC standards, i thought debating concrete issues may yield better results.
So i am recycling something from my unsent-post-folder.
I had brought this up on fiftychat when it was news, so the usual suspects may find this repetetive.
Ok, so the Army has reversed its previous position (which was slightly more liberal) on military hair styles and other issues in its newest revision of AR 670-1.
When it did various left of center publications have pushed this as a controversy, lending support to the petition to the WH of some military women etc.
Originally this was commonly charactarised as a "feminism" issue, subsequently increasingly as a race issue.
The jist of the argument is that the maintained or re-upped restrictions on various hair-styles commonly used by African American women constitute race (and/or gender) discrimination, because these restrictions essentially leave available primarily "female" hair-styles that are a whole lot easier to employ if one has naturally straight hair.
The problem (at face value) is neatly demonstrated in this comic in the Sideboob Gazette:
Anywho. My problem with this whole controversy is that i see the heart of the problem in frame #5 of this comic (rather than #1, #2 and #3):
Military hairstyles are - supposedly - a serious matter. Gas masks aside malfunctioning hair can, so i would suspect, rather easily get caught in all sorts of machinery resulting in one getting injured, maimed, killed in actual combat. And then there are less spectacular and more common issues, like hair getting wet in the field, due to, you know, weather, which is a tiny bit more consequential if one happens to have lots of it.
So:
Opinions?
PS:
The link to the petition is broken. By the way the numbers were going at the time i wrote this post, i suspect that it has failed by a mile, which is regretable in my view, my objections notwithstanding.
So i am recycling something from my unsent-post-folder.
I had brought this up on fiftychat when it was news, so the usual suspects may find this repetetive.
Disclaimer:
Rape in the US military and the unambiguous and scandalous institutional failure in response to it constitute a very significant issue that warrants its own thread on this board, but this is not that thread. I'd appreciate it if our resident social justice "experts" resisted their urge to make arguments to the effect of "you are right, but rape, therefore privilege, therefore [loadsofbullpucky]".
Conversely: This thread operates under the premise that fundamentally women are fit to serve in any and all military positions, including all combat positions. Rejection of this premise may not be argued, explained, supported etc. at any length significantly greater than 'zero'. We had other threads for that.
This is the primary reason for this to be RD. Other than that feel free to be your usual unsophisticated self.
Rape in the US military and the unambiguous and scandalous institutional failure in response to it constitute a very significant issue that warrants its own thread on this board, but this is not that thread. I'd appreciate it if our resident social justice "experts" resisted their urge to make arguments to the effect of "you are right, but rape, therefore privilege, therefore [loadsofbullpucky]".
Conversely: This thread operates under the premise that fundamentally women are fit to serve in any and all military positions, including all combat positions. Rejection of this premise may not be argued, explained, supported etc. at any length significantly greater than 'zero'. We had other threads for that.
This is the primary reason for this to be RD. Other than that feel free to be your usual unsophisticated self.
Ok, so the Army has reversed its previous position (which was slightly more liberal) on military hair styles and other issues in its newest revision of AR 670-1.
When it did various left of center publications have pushed this as a controversy, lending support to the petition to the WH of some military women etc.
Originally this was commonly charactarised as a "feminism" issue, subsequently increasingly as a race issue.
The jist of the argument is that the maintained or re-upped restrictions on various hair-styles commonly used by African American women constitute race (and/or gender) discrimination, because these restrictions essentially leave available primarily "female" hair-styles that are a whole lot easier to employ if one has naturally straight hair.
The problem (at face value) is neatly demonstrated in this comic in the Sideboob Gazette:
Spoiler :
Note:
Barely a few inches above the relevant article the Sideboob Gazette used the depiction of a gas mask in reference to the newest suspected poison gas attack in Syria (or some such).
Also note:
The first guy's beard in the comic is in clear violation of AR 670-1.
Barely a few inches above the relevant article the Sideboob Gazette used the depiction of a gas mask in reference to the newest suspected poison gas attack in Syria (or some such).
Also note:
The first guy's beard in the comic is in clear violation of AR 670-1.
Anywho. My problem with this whole controversy is that i see the heart of the problem in frame #5 of this comic (rather than #1, #2 and #3):
Military hairstyles are - supposedly - a serious matter. Gas masks aside malfunctioning hair can, so i would suspect, rather easily get caught in all sorts of machinery resulting in one getting injured, maimed, killed in actual combat. And then there are less spectacular and more common issues, like hair getting wet in the field, due to, you know, weather, which is a tiny bit more consequential if one happens to have lots of it.
So:
- Women can wear their hair rather short, but there is a minimum hair length requirement that doesn't exist for men.
Why should this be deemed acceptable? And why is this not the primary issue in this controversy? - Why is there an eloborate policy in place granting all sorts of exceptions from the military practice based code for men to women, that apparently serve no other function than to make it possible for (primarily white and asian) women to engage in vanity and regressively gendered fashion and body image?
And why is it tolerated that this puts women at risk, presumable undermines their credibility as equally effective, possibly actually renders them not equally effective in some circumstances? - Conversely: Why is the military so relatively tolerant regarding beards and tattoos, which appears to be an issue about exclusive or predominantly male vanity and machismo?
- Summarily: Why is this code not strictly based on military efficiency and the soldiers' safety, imposing uniform requirements on soldiers regardless of their gender but instead makes all sorts of arbitrary (and as in this case arguably racist) concessions to images propagated by male- and female-oriented beauty- and life style magazines?
- More broadly: To which degree if at all do you feel a military could or should deviate from practical requirements (which would include international law on conduct in war etc.) in order to exemplify, further, represent declared values of the nation it defends?
- Even more broadly, why do we still accept, even expect, regressively gendered dress codes in other walks of life (i'm thinking... for example: the male bank teller who has to convey seriousness with his attire vs. the young female bank teller who is essentially used as eye candy and expected to be "pretty" and "cute", with these expectations reflected in some corporate dress code or another)?
Opinions?
PS:
The link to the petition is broken. By the way the numbers were going at the time i wrote this post, i suspect that it has failed by a mile, which is regretable in my view, my objections notwithstanding.
