Current Dress Regs

[Remius]

And they did a fantastic job.

 

[CountDC]

This is part of the problem and was likely reactionary to current events.

I am as well. My mistake was thinking we would still look professional.

Same. While I’ve seen a few CAF wide, my unit has no one with crazy hair colour. Homeless Wizards for sure but all natural hair colour.

I generally wear a beard. Started doing that to demonstrate a standard when beardforgen came out. Unless in ceremonial where I will shave.

I have not seen anyone with the hair colour happening since the policy was changed.

I started shaving when beardforgen came out. Took the fun out of working with the army and wearing a beard to annoy them.

 

[mariomike]

Perhaps FJAG said it best,

It's not just a military and police thing. Many (most?) service industries also have grooming standards for their employees. The employee represents the company and in many cases the company wants to present a certain image to their desired customer base. Certainly that's true for law firms, accounting firms and many other "professional" services. Even organizations like McDonalds provide uniforms for their staff to ensure that a set corporate image works the counters. Things may run much more loosely in an Amazon Fulfillment Centre but wherever the employee faces, or potentially faces, the customer, appearance matters.

Especially on house calls.

Study of "Public Perceptions of Police Grooming Standards" .

Many law enforcement agencies have long had policies or regulations regarding grooming standards for police officers. These agencies have argued that strict grooming standards are necessary to ensure safety, discipline, and uniformity; to promote an esprit de corps; and to foster public respect for police. Courts have widely accepted these reasons as legitimate and rational.

 

[Maxman1]

As a citizen taxpayer, I expect my publicly-funded military to represent my country professionally and honourably. I can't fully define what that looks like but, as they say about art, 'I don't know art but I know what I like'.

It's also easier to explain why a machine doesn't work than it is to explain why it works properly.

 

[Castus]

Ok, so let's go with a thought experiment here. If we want to have clear standards that distinguish ourselves from the broader society, why not make purple hair and goatees mandatory?

It's clear, it's a standard. It would certainly mark us as exclusive.

Why exactly is the standard that you deem acceptable boil down to "what middle to upper class men wore in the 1950s"?

And how exactly is that defensible? Why pick that as the standard to be attained?

But anyways, I disagree with the premise that exclusionary standards increase morale. They actually decrease morale for anyone who wasn't already inclined to wear their hair that way, etc etc. All you're doing is alienating / driving out the type of people who don't fit in to those "standards".

We are not blank slates. We come from a society which has a view of what 'elite' looks like, and it is not purple hair and goatees. It is clean looking, fit and well dressed. Our perception comes from our lineage, and what middle and upper class men wore in the 1950s in Canada and throughout the Anglosphere (at the very least, if not the West writ large) continues to be viewed as preferable.

If you dislike that this is how Western societies view successful men and women, that is a personal interpretation that has no bearing on the fact that hierarchies are real, and we fit into one, and the way we look matters in reality. We have tried pandering to the utopians and blank slatists, and it has not worked - unless you count reducing our image in the eyes of our own population, as well as our allies (and frankly our adversaries as well). If people don't like said standards and do not wish to conform to them, then perhaps the institution is not the right fit for them.

 

[OldSolduer]

I have not seen anyone with the hair colour happening since the policy was changed.

I started shaving when beardforgen came out. Took the fun out of working with the army and wearing a beard to annoy them.

LOL reminds me of a joke - SpecOps canteens have sold out of razors once BEARDFORGEN was released.....

 

[Grimey]

LOL reminds me of a joke - SpecOps canteens have sold out of razors once BEARDFORGEN was released.....

That's akin to the Ranger's adoption of the sandy beret when the US Army as a whole moved to black.

 

[btrudy]

What are the particulars of that disagreement? We exclude a large swath of society on the basis of several factors. Ultimately we want the best as mentioned but practically we need people that can do various jobs we need them to. The very nature of the work will exclude a number of people.

We exclude a large swath of society based upon bone fide operational requirements. We want the best, in terms of actually being able to do the job. The very nature of the work will exclude a number of people, sure. That's a good enough reason to not go and start excluding others based upon nothing more than aesthetic preferences.

The notion that we should be going out of our way to try and deliberately exclude people for anything other than an actual justifiable job requirement goes against everything I know about the values that country we're supposed to be serving holds dear.

The question should be why make that the standard not “why not”.

Again, what would it achieve and what would be the reasoning for it?

Well, while we're at it, I'd levvy the same question at the current dress standards. Why those, instead of something else? What makes that particular set of aesthetic preferences justified versus any other set?

Why do you assume that that is the reasoning? When I hear that sort of line, I don’t think that it’s coming from a genuine thought for reasoning but rather some sort of anti establishment bias.

Because that's around when the standards were codefied, and there were no real updates until 2022? And no reasonable justification which could be tied to actual operational requirements has since been made?

Again, you have defined that standard as to what you think it is based on your feelings. And how is it any less defensible as the standard that you want to see?

I will point back to my previous statement about inclusivity being one of Canada's core national values, and that our dress instructions should thus strive to be as inclusive as possible. It's restrictions that need to be justified. Permitting people to express themselves the way they wish, in accordance with their section 2(b) Charter rights is the default position. Limiting that freedom of expression is what needs to be defended.

To a certain extent you have a point. But that depends on what your definition of standards is. There is however a certain level of cohesion and pride for some to achieve certain standards. If the standard to get a certain qual is X, there is some pride in achieving that standard and being surrounded by those that do. Earning your cap badge, wings, berets etc are all part of that.

Well, yeah. Duh. I'm all in favour of refocusing our mentality around cohesion and pride to be centered around actual accomplishments; rigorous training and operational excellence are what fosters pride.

None of that has a damned thing to do with the color of one's hair or the length of their beard. Telling some people that they don't fit in because they'd prefer to look differently than others (for whatever reason, be it religious, cultural, or just personal preference) does not foster pride; it just alienates people for no particularly good reason.

 

[Remius]

We exclude a large swath of society based upon bone fide operational requirements. We want the best, in terms of actually being able to do the job. The very nature of the work will exclude a number of people, sure. That's a good enough reason to not go and start excluding others based upon nothing more than aesthetic preferences.

Not always. People get excluded for things like age for example. But that answer didn’t explain why you disagreed with Castus’ assertion that effectiveness is more important than inclusivity. Aesthetic preferences are not going to exclude them. Adherence to rules is expected and they are told that going in. They make a choice to exclude themselves based on THEIR feelings.

The notion that we should be going out of our way to try and deliberately exclude people for anything other than an actual justifiable job requirement goes against everything I know about the values that country we're supposed to be serving holds dear.

Sorry, you are losing the narrative here. What values are being gone against exactly? How does coloured hair fit into that one way or another? Plenty of things the CAF does is anathema to certain values. We have limited freedom of expression in uniform, we are not a democracy, we can be told to do dangerous things etc etc.

Well, while we're at it, I'd levvy the same question at the current dress standards. Why those, instead of something else? What makes that particular set of aesthetic preferences justified versus any other set?

Plenty of reasons. Societal norms of the day, tradition, functionality, appearance, projection to the public, cohesion, identifiers, etc etc.

Because that's around when the standards were codefied, and there were no real updates until 2022? And no reasonable justification which could be tied to actual operational requirements has since been made?

You are either not informed or working on faulty info here. The dress regs have gone through many changes since the 50s. I don’t know how long you’ve been in for, but we’ve a lot of things change as the face of the CAF has changed. Mostly due to inclusive policies to not exclude people. And we’ve led the way in most cases.

I will point back to my previous statement about inclusivity being one of Canada's core national values, and that our dress instructions should thus strive to be as inclusive as possible. It's restrictions that need to be justified. Permitting people to express themselves the way they wish, in accordance with their section 2(b) Charter rights is the default position. Limiting that freedom of expression is what needs to be defended.

So you are arguing from feelings and not facts. We have limits on freedom of expression. What is it about the current regs that you feel is limiting? I take you are not a fan of the rules being tightened up?

Well, yeah. Duh. I'm all in favour of refocusing our mentality around cohesion and pride to be centered around actual accomplishments; rigorous training and operational excellence are what fosters pride.

Yes, and amazingly we are still a society that still values idolatry. So if someone wears that maroon beret for example it means something. People wearing uniforms fosters pride because it, in itself is a symbol of a certain achievement, and how it is worn is regulated.

None of that has a damned thing to do with the color of one's hair or the length of their beard. Telling some people that they don't fit in because they'd prefer to look differently than others (for whatever reason, be it religious, cultural, or just personal preference) does not foster pride; it just alienates people for no particularly good reason.

We talked about standards. And definitions of that. If a troop wants to wear a bandana with all sorts of Taylor Swift stuff on it because it makes the feel like they can express themselves so we allow that? What about Nike sneakers instead of combat boots or drill boots? Or how about a bright sombrero in Cadpat? How about someone wanting to wear their clan tie with their DEUs? Again all about personal expression and preference.

The problem is that some people don’t like to conform and they don’t like establishment rules. I would argue that the CAF might not be the right fit for those people at some point.


What is it about the rules right now as of July 2nd when they come into effect that you don’t like and feel is an infringement on Canadian values as you apparently know them?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I have the right to speak either official language I desire and receive services in either, no matter where I am in Canada; yet am disadvantaged in my career if I cannot attain a BBB in French, because its a requirement of my employment.

Its completely legal for me, should I desire, to consume cannabis within the laws and regulations of the Cannabis Act; yet I am bound by the CAF Cannabis policy not to consume it for a multitude of reasons that are more stringent than most other employers.

I have the freedom of political opinion, assembly, and to run for office; yet am barred from participating in political activities, signing petitions, forming a union, or expressing a political opinion by the Q R&Os and various other governing policies issued by the CAF.

We, as an organization, are distinct from the rest of Canadian society in what rights and freedoms we are able to enjoy while we wear the uniform. That includes our freedom of expression; including appearance.

We also are a volunteer military that people knowingly apply to join. We make no secret of what people are getting into when they sign on the dotted line and that is reinforced during the probationary period known as BM(O)Q.

Our Dress Policy previous to 2022 was not exclusionary, any more than it was in 2018, or otherwise. It was adapted to accomodate those that had a need to be accomodated and set the standard for everyone on what appropriate dress and grooming looked like. A memeber that joined was educated on what that standard looked like and was expected to maintain that as grounds for their continued employment.

There is no stretch of the imagination I can see that we somehow created a more "inclusive" CAF with this stupidity. We still have massive issues with sexual assault. We still have racism in our ranks. We still have issues with Official Languages. We still have issues with toxic leadership. The dress changes were theatre to avoid much more complicated problems we have neither the time, effort, or inclination to attempt to resolve.

So no, @btrudy , this has done absolutely nothing to increase inclusion within the CAF; which by its very nature is exclusionary and oppressive compared to the rest of Canadian society.

Instead, we opted to shove the most pressing of our problems into the closet and decided to somewhow look more incompetent as a force in the process: with unkempt facial hair and neon hair.

 

[btrudy]

Not always. People get excluded for things like age for example. But that answer didn’t explain why you disagreed with Castus’ assertion that effectiveness is more important than inclusivity. Aesthetic preferences are not going to exclude them. Adherence to rules is expected and they are told that going in. They make a choice to exclude themselves based on THEIR feelings.

I disagree with the premise. Inclusivity increases effectiveness. Exclusivity decreases it. Excluding people for literally any reason that doesn't have a negative impact on operational effectiveness... decreases operational effectiveness of the CAF.

Only bona fide operational requirements are justifiable reasons to exclude anyone, IMHO. Aesthetics preferences sure as hell are not.

Following rules is certainly important, but those rules need to be justified based upon, you guessed it, bona fide operational requirements. Making up stupid rules just because you can doesn't make the CAF better.

Sorry, you are losing the narrative here. What values are being gone against exactly? How does coloured hair fit into that one way or another? Plenty of things the CAF does is anathema to certain values. We have limited freedom of expression in uniform, we are not a democracy, we can be told to do dangerous things etc etc.

Freedom of expression being limited in uniform is fine, for valid reasons; it is of course completely improper for a CAF member to be attempting to use their membership in the CAF to influence politics, sell products, etc etc. Being told to do dangerous things is justified when there is a valid requirement to do so; you can order someone to fight a fire or get in a fire fight; and associated training to prep to do so. You can't order them to play in traffic or to not wear a helmet when riding a bike.

Plenty of reasons. Societal norms of the day, tradition, functionality, appearance, projection to the public, cohesion, identifiers, etc etc.

You are either not informed or working on faulty info here. The dress regs have gone through many changes since the 50s. I don’t know how long you’ve been in for, but we’ve a lot of things change as the face of the CAF has changed. Mostly due to inclusive policies to not exclude people. And we’ve led the way in most cases.

So you are arguing from feelings and not facts. We have limits on freedom of expression. What is it about the current regs that you feel is limiting? I take you are not a fan of the rules being tightened up?

I'm not a fan of the new limit on beard length; I'd be all in favour of tightening up grooming requirements. Being neat and tidy while in uniform is all well and good. But the arbitrary length limit seems, well, arbitrary. And when the impact is that the member can't do what they want with their facial hair while off duty, then it should be justified for some reason other than aesthetics.

Edit: also, forgot, the restriction on facial piercings. I can see keeping a "no mouth piercings" one due to the increased risk of dental damage, but don't think barring eyebrow or nose are reasonable.

Yes, and amazingly we are still a society that still values idolatry. So if someone wears that maroon beret for example it means something. People wearing uniforms fosters pride because it, in itself is a symbol of a certain achievement, and how it is worn is regulated.

Yes. Pride in achievements is ideal. Pride in visible signifiers of achievements is commendable. I don't have a problem with that, and I don't see why anyone else would. Medals and specialist badges and rank insignia and all that jazz are great.

I like uniforms. They serve their purpose well. Realistically, the only real change I'd make to the dress instructions w.r.t. uniforms would be to make the wearing of headdress outside optional except for ceremonial events.

I think perhaps I'm not getting the main point of my argument across directly enough: I take issue with "dress" instructions when those dress instructions require a member to change or not change their body.

We talked about standards. And definitions of that. If a troop wants to wear a bandana with all sorts of Taylor Swift stuff on it because it makes the feel like they can express themselves so we allow that?

Off duty, yes. On duty no. I am in no way shape or form advocating that members be allowed to augment uniforms willy-nilly. What I don't want is limitations that affect how they present themselves while off duty (except for good reasons like "you need to be clean shaven while on ship because otherwise we all might die in a fire").

What about Nike sneakers instead of combat boots or drill boots? Or how about a bright sombrero in Cadpat? How about someone wanting to wear their clan tie with their DEUs? Again all about personal expression and preference.

The problem is that some people don’t like to conform and they don’t like establishment rules. I would argue that the CAF might not be the right fit for those people at some point.

What is it about the rules right now as of July 2nd when they come into effect that you don’t like and feel is an infringement on Canadian values as you apparently know them?

 

[btrudy]

I have the right to speak either official language I desire and receive services in either, no matter where I am in Canada; yet am disadvantaged in my career if I cannot attain a BBB in French, because its a requirement of my employment.

Well yes, because if members have a right to recieve services in either official languages, that also implies an onus upon people to be able to provide services in both official languages, should they wish to get promoted and start supervising people who prefer a different official language than the one they speak.

Thus making that a bona fide operational requirement.

Its completely legal for me, should I desire, to consume cannabis within the laws and regulations of the Cannabis Act; yet I am bound by the CAF Cannabis policy not to consume it for a multitude of reasons that are more stringent than most other employers.

Yes. Because of the manner in which cannabis usage can affect your ability to perform your duties.

I have the freedom of political opinion, assembly, and to run for office; yet am barred from participating in political activities, signing petitions, forming a union, or expressing a political opinion by the Q R&Os and various other governing policies issued by the CAF.

Yes, because it's unethical to exploit your position to influence politics.

Do I need to keep going? The limitations are fine as long as there's a damned good reason for them. The fact that some people prefer other people to look a certain way is not a sufficiently good reason. There's no logical link between that and how people do their jobs.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Do I need to keep going?

Please do. You championed inclusivity as Canadian value, then when presented with the idea that that inclusivity can be sacrificed on the altar of necessity, you agreed wholeheartedly; pointing out there is a certain flexibility required in moral absolutism.

Which brings me to here:

The limitations are fine as long as there's a damned good reason for them.

Wholeheartedly agree.

The fact that some people prefer other people to look a certain way is not a sufficiently good reason.

Completely disagree. We as a society, even an inclusive one such as Canada like you mentioned, has societal pressures that governor acceptable behaviour and dress. It is in every facet of Canadian society; from academia, politics, service, commerce, and sport.

Some are justifiable and others are exclusionary by personal preference. It is a norm, even if it is hypocritical. If we are to represent the "inclusive" society that is Canada, would that also mean understanding we can put limits based on representing a certain image that is counter to others within broader society

There's no logical link between that and how people do their jobs.

Our people's jobs are not strictly Charlie Team taking the trench, Wrench Bender #6 bending wrenches on 6 x CC-177, nor faceless Boatswain #2 doing whatever swaining of boats on HMCS Rustbucket. Every person who dons the King's uniform is now an ambassador for Canada; amongst Canadians, amongst our allies, and amongst our adversaries.

You represent the collective image of our nation and if you look like a bag of ass in the process, you lose credibility in a hypocritical, vain, and yes...exclusionary world. If your loss of credibility impacts our ability to perform strategically, operationally, or even in the hearts and minds realm of Canadian society; you are not doing your job.

So yes, it DOES have a logical impact on how someone does their job. Our job is far more than our day-to-day work, and our duties and influence are more far reaching than individuals would like to think.

 

[Lumber]

There's no logical link between that and how people do their jobs.

I don't want to dog pile on you, but I want to emphasize @rmc_wannabe 's response to you regarding this point.

Whether you like it or not, the fact is that most of the world is not as inclusive as us, and most of the world, including Canada, views "1950' s white male grooming standards" (or however you put it) as the standard of professionalism and poise. Almost uniquely to the RCN, our ships are always conducting ambasadorial/relationship building whenever overseas. Sometimes that might even be the ONLY reason a ship is deployed. You might not appreciate this, because it really is at a very high strategic level, but these types of engagements are extremely important to building and maintaining the international relationships that form the backbone of our national security policies. When we host a diplomatic delegation aboard one of our ships, as we do in almost every port our ships visit, it's important that we present a serious and professional image. This is especially true when we visit countries who's cultures take this kind of thing very seriously. If the quarter master at the brow looks like a fucking bum, then we're less likely to achieve our desired end state.

 

[btrudy]

... please refer above to where I advocated for stricter grooming standards. Dress and deportment are important alongside personal expression; I'm just arguing that it shouldn't be at the expense of.

Dictating how someone wears the uniform and how they groom themselves when they do is all well and good.

And of course if we're specifically worried about shaggy beards at cocktail parties, that seems like a moot point because by the regulations the QM should, since they're posted to a sea-going unit, be clean shaven anyways. For actual safety reasons, and not aesthetics.

 

[Fabius]

Realistically, the only real change I'd make to the dress instructions w.r.t. uniforms would be to make the wearing of headdress outside optional except for ceremonial events.

Why would you recommend that change? What are the pros and cons? What are the second and third order effects that you would expect?

 

[dimsum]

From the various comments both here and in other social media, there seem to be several major categories that people seem to conflate as part of the new dress regs:

1. Colour, whether hair, nails, etc
2. Grooming/cleanliness
3. Visible “fitness”
4. Uniform upkeep

People say that the CAF looks “unprofessional” due to the new dress regs, when it deals with point 1 and sometimes point 2. If you look like you haven’t showered in a month, that’s a cleanliness/grooming thing which shouldn’t have changed under the “old new” rules.

However, get deep enough into a conversation and inevitably points 3 and 4 come up, which has zero to do with HAIRFORGEN. If you can pass the FORCE test, you have the minimum fitness required. Whether you look good or not is not part of the dress regs. Also, the uniform rules themselves haven’t changed - try placing badges wherever you want and walking by an RSM.

 

[Furniture]

Why would you recommend that change? What are the pros and cons? What are the second and third order effects that you would expect?

I actually support this idea.

The better question is; what is the utility of an uncomfortable wool hat with a shiny badge? Why do we have hats that don't serve an actual function?

If we insist on hats, why are we not pushing for practical hats that keep the sun off our people, or that actually keep them warm?

 

[Fabius]

The better question is; what is the utility of an uncomfortable wool hat with a shiny badge? Why do we have hats that don't serve an actual function?

That is fundamentally flawed reasoning I would suggest. Those desiring change should not use adjectives which imply derision to current standards in the process of demanding the status quote defend itself.
Those desiring change should present a clear problem statement with several valid alternative options and an analysis to present the pros and cons of each and then an assessment of the second and third order effects and mitigation.

That’s how the CAF as an institution does change.

So to start what is the problem that wearing headdress outside presents?

 

[Furniture]

From the various comments both here and in other social media, there seem to be several major categories that people seem to conflate as part of the new dress regs:

1. Colour, whether hair, nails, etc
2. Grooming/cleanliness
3. Visible “fitness”
4. Uniform upkeep

People say that the CAF looks “unprofessional” due to the new dress regs, when it deals with point 1 and sometimes point 2. If you look like you haven’t showered in a month, that’s a cleanliness/grooming thing which shouldn’t have changed under the “old new” rules.

However, get deep enough into a conversation and inevitably points 3 and 4 come up, which has zero to do with HAIRFORGEN. If you can pass the FORCE test, you have the minimum fitness required. Whether you look good or not is not part of the dress regs. Also, the uniform rules themselves haven’t changed - try placing badges wherever you want and walking by an RSM.

This is exactly what makes dress regulations a bit of a Gordian Knot... There are interwoven elements that touch on each other but aren't directly connected.

A chubby CPO 2 with a clean shave and short hair likely looks more professional to most people than a fit S1 with a "dwarven beard" and long hair all over the place.

A fit S1 with a clean shave and short hair looks 100% more professional to everybody than a chubby CPO 2 with a dwarven beard and hair all over the place.

If we enforce neatly trimmed beards, and short hair or hair put up well, both the chubby CPO 2 and the fit S1 look reasonably professional to most.