I always thought you could only build one of these per mission...

Is this thread about men in sparkly uniforms, or about women being used as sex symbols instead of the professional soldiers they are supposed to be?

If some army thinks that bright colors excudes professionalism because of some previous tradition, that's their business. It is not discrimination according to sex. Stop changing the topic.

And we come back to how you can conclude that the women are being used as sex symbols, which you still haven't explained. The uniforms are not particularly form fitting, they aren't wearing miniskirts, and shiny boots, while possessing some unfortunate implications, are included in many uniforms, mostly male. They are also quite common in fetish gear aimed at women. So, can we conclude that the male dress uniforms of the Russian Federation prove that Russian men are being used as sex symbols instead of the professional soldiers they are supposed to be?

Or is it your point that any clothing that does not entirely obscure the female shape somehow making women sex symbols? That seems a little Saudi Arabian to me. Do you also have anything against male uniforms that fail to obscure the shape of the male body?
 
The standard and criteria are simple:

Military dress should reflect someone's profession. It should be about professionalism, no matter if male or female. It is crap that females are clowned and not taken seriously as soldiers by putting them in uniforms that are more concerned with "sexiness" than professionalism. It is a crappy thing to do to women who probably do, in fact, consider themselves professional soldiers and not skirt-and-heels models.


Treat a professional soldier like a professional soldier. And that means a professional uniform that is not meant to be sexy. Show them some respect for what they do, not what they look like. Clownishly accentuating their looks (how battle-feasible is a skirt above the knees?!) is treating them as less than the male soldiers. Do you see male soldiers in short-shorts and muscle shirts to accentuate their looks? No, because we only crap on the female soldiers.
 
The standard and criteria are simple:

Military dress should reflect someone's profession. It should be about professionalism, no matter if male or female. It is crap that females are clowned and not taken seriously as soldiers by putting them in uniforms that are more concerned with "sexiness" than professionalism. It is a crappy thing to do to women who probably do, in fact, consider themselves professional soldiers and not skirt-and-heels models.

Yet men's parade uniforms do exactly the same thing. Useless swords that they don't really use, excessive glitter that is completely useless, all of that has nothing to do with professionalism and everything to do with making them glow and appear "manly". It is much more a costume than a uniform. Your issue then, should not be with women specifically, but with the concepts of parade dress in general. That double standard is what I take issue with. Why are women in such positions an outrage, while male peacocks are ignored?
 
woops nevermind
 
Bill, two comepletely different subjects.

The t-shirts were worn OFF_DUTY as civilian dress chosen by private citizens.

We are talking about uniforms that are REQUIRED_WEAR by higher ups.

Men are supposed to look good in their dress uniforms, so why shouldn't women?

Professionalism first.

If your only criteria is "looking good" then put them in bikinis and put the men in speedos.
 
Was it an actually administrative formation or just a performance drill formation? At my school (the Citadel) formation was actually used for military purposes and every cadet was incorporated regardless of size. There were performance drill formations that were more strict, though we never disallowed anyone for heights. I used to be a member of the Summerall Guards, and I was a full foot and a half shorter than the tallest guy.

Some organizations are more strict though. The Marine Corps silent drill team does have strict physical requirments for all sorts of things in order to be a member.

The Citidel, was that not the organisation that had a bit of a scrap about allowing women in ?
 
Professionalism first.

If your only criteria is "looking good" then put them in bikinis and put the men in speedos.

That is the only criteria of a man's parade uniform.
 
A uniform's purpose is to express professionalism, first and foremost.

I guess people who have never been in the military do not know this.
 
No, a uniforms purpose is to express identity and conformity. Any British schoolkid could tell you that.
 
If your only criteria is "looking good" then put them in bikinis and put the men in speedos.

You know, people find things other than bikinis and speedos attractive.

As for your criteria, it seems that fatigues are the only things that fit. Pure function, no concern for looks. In other words, pure professionalism. More to the point, none of your criticisms apply more to female dress uniforms than male.
 
A uniform's purpose is to express professionalism, first and foremost.

Yet that is absolutely not what parade uniforms do.

I guess people who have never been in the military do not know this.

I may not be in the military myself, but I am the son of a Lt. Colonel. It doesn't make me particularly knowledgeable, but it does make you look condescending.
 
I'm done.

If people want to dress women up in sexy military uniforms that diminish their professionalism and turns them into sex-objects instead of professional soldiers...

Well, the world is slow to change. I shouldn't be surprised.

China has a company of sex-objects. I'm sure they are proud.
 
Professionalism first.

If your only criteria is "looking good" then put them in bikinis and put the men in speedos.

So, according to you, professionalism in uniforms can be only achieved by applying masculine standards on women? How very feminist of you :) Seriously, you failed to give a single convincing argument why should female dress uniforms look the same as male dress uniforms. Professionalism isn't the answer, as it doesn't dictate the form.
 
How does professionalism look like?

does these look professional:

800px-Bearskin.cenotaph.london.arp.jpg
 
applying masculine standards on women
Uniform standards. Uniform. Not male or female. Just professional. And skirt-above-knees and heels is not exuding military professionalism.

These women, these professional soldiers, have been undermined by turning them into sex-objects. We have stripped them of the respect and admiration of the tough professional soldiers that they strive to be.
 
Uniform standards. Uniform. Not male or female. Just professional. And skirt-above-knees and heels is not exuding military professionalism.

Yes, uniform - in this case, male. Because that's exactly what it would be.

I am afraid you're totally missing the point of dress uniforms - they really are supposed to look good. It's not their only function, but it is one of the functions. You insist that looking good is actually a bad thing when you're a woman in the military, again, that's not a very feminist mindset.
 
I dont exactly see whats so outrageous about what Ecofarm is saying...

First thing I thought when I saw this pictures is that their showing the woman as sex symbols - not a professional military. They look like a college girl about to hit the club.

Women in the US wear skirts in their uniforms too - but dresses are longer and they're not complemented with F me boots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Army_Service_Uniform

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniforms_of_the_United_States_Marine_Corps


Cant find Navy - but they're pretty standard with just different colors.
 
At any rate, I don't particularly care about these Chinese parades, I don't think many could honestly have expected them to not do something like this on their state's anniversary.
 
Back
Top Bottom