Current Dress Regs

[Edward Campbell]

Out of curiosity was the sword functional or was it for show? Not that you'd start wacking people with it (or maybe...) but I'm just curious if they were technically usable.

Oh, yes, it was (still is) a perfectly usable sword. each officer was expected to have one ... "expected" is a word we heard a lot in the 1960s, it sorta meant 'required.'

 

[GK .Dundas]

The 1908 sabre was designed to stab not slash . One does not whack people with one's Sabre . It lacks couth .

 

[Maxman1]

What about letting CAF members wear civilian clothes to work if they want? Some CAF members are embarrassed about the recent scandals and wearing a uniform negatively impacts their mental health and self-image. Wearing civilian clothes when they want would afford them an opportunity to tailor their experience in the CAF while expressing their sense of identity. Some units already authorized members in civilian clothing, albeit for different reasons.

You could always pack your combats in a bag and change at work.

 

[Jarnhamar]

You could always pack your combats in a bag and change at work.

That should have said wear civilian clothes instead of uniforms. Don't wear uniforms because people are more comfortable in PT gear or jeans and a t-shirt.

 

[btrudy]

Ok maybe I need to read through your posts again, but it feels like your arguments are incongruent. On the one hand you do say you don't believe that there should be any dress standards that are not based on operational requirements, and that outside of operational requirements, members should be free to express themselves, but on the other hand, you say that there should be standards of professionalism while in uniform.

I don't feel that's really the case. While on the job, it's reasonable to have expectations on how you present yourself, as long as those expectations don't unduly limit how someone expresses themselves while off duty. The issue with hair dye and beards and all that jazz when it comes to the wear of the uniform is that you can't just take the uniform off at the end of the day and put your beard and brightly colored hair back on.

Tight grooming standards while on duty don't restrict what you do with it after work.

The problem is that these two positions can conflict, and I think it stems from your own personal understanding of what "operational necessity" means. You're thinking to "tactical", meaning beards on ship, pink hair while trying to maintain camouflage in the bush, unkept long hair while operating around running machinery, etc. You need to expand your thinking and realize that 99% of the time we aren't actually fighting, but we are actually deterring, and as stupid as it may seem, a spit polished military has a much higher "intimidation" effect than a sloppy one. To be clear, I'm not talking about one set of troops intimidating another set of troops from across no man's land, I'm talking about the operational and strategic level effect that can be achieved when the adversary (or allies) think "these guys are the real deal".

To reiterate once again, I am not proposing that we allow people to look "sloppy". I am in favour of tightening up grooming requirements when in uniform. I am in favour of enforcing regulations on deportment.

Frankly though, I think you're underestimating the enemy if you think that they're going to be less intimidated when facing a fully staffed, equipped, and trained fighting force just because the members of said force might have a beard that's 3 inches in bulk or painted fingernails or has their hair dyed CADPAT.

But god, let's face it, we've got about a million other things to worry about fixing with regards to our state of readiness before we start worrying about the very marginal effects that something like this has on deterrence. We're also sure as shit not going to trick anyone into thinking we're in a good readiness state just by having everyone in a high and tight.

Now, from your posts, it seems like you really only have an issue with the arbitrary 1" beard length restriction, and on that point, yea, I can't see having a 2" beard making a big difference, and to that I will say two things. 1. You have to draw the line somewhere. A 2" beard isn't that much "less professional" than a 1" beard, but a 12" wizard bear is. And 2. You kind of invited this on yourself because instead of attacking that one specific restriction, you've been speaking very generally, which is where my counter-arguments are really directed.

Well, IMHO no, you don't actually need to draw a line somewhere, you just need to have a requirement that it be neatly groomed. It's not really the length that's the problem here. It's when it looks wildly bushy and unkempt.

What changes will be needed for your proposal in terms of how the CAF salutes officers?

I'd be fine with either "saluting without a hat is required" or the overall reduction in salutes that would happen if we just stopped saluting when either party wasn't wearing a hat. I suspect we'd go with the former. World won't end.

 

[Maxman1]

That should have said wear civilian clothes instead of uniforms. Don't wear uniforms because people are more comfortable in PT gear or jeans and a t-shirt.

We're a volunteer military. Anyone who doesn't want to wear the uniform is welcome to turn it in and leave.

 

[Fabius]

as long as those expectations don't unduly limit how someone expresses themselves while off duty.

How do you propose to establish and enforce expectations without a defined line?

What is unduly? Who decides that?
What is neatly groomed? How is that defined? According to what standard?

It's when it looks wildly bushy and unkempt.

What does that look like? According to whom is it wildly bushy and unkempt? According to what standard?

I'd be fine with either "saluting without a hat is required" or the overall reduction in salutes that would happen if we just stopped saluting when either party wasn't wearing a hat. I suspect we'd go with the former. World won't end.

Since the standard accepted across our peer allied militaries is that saluting is generally done only with headdress, how would that affect our relative standing in the overall eyes of our allies?
I am sure you don’t care about our allies perception of us in this one case. In a broader context I would however suggest that a large number of small relatively inconsequential decisions can in aggregate have a large negative impact if one is not careful.

 

[Stoker]

Apparently this is being used to guide the new RCN policy on shipboard facial hair.

 

[dapaterson]

So I can return to telling sailors with magnificent beards "I see you haven't been to sea for a long time".

 

[Jarnhamar]

We're a volunteer military. Anyone who doesn't want to wear the uniform is welcome to turn it in and leave.

Yeah I guess it does sound pretty funny when you word it like that.

 

[btrudy]

How do you propose to establish and enforce expectations without a defined line?

I'd generally say by providing a set of visual examples of what is and isn't acceptable, and let people work from that. Same dude with a long beard , in unkempt version versus properly groomed.

What is unduly? Who decides that?

As always, chains of command using their best judgement.

Since the standard accepted across our peer allied militaries is that saluting is generally done only with headdress, how would that affect our relative standing in the overall eyes of our allies?

I am sure you don’t care about our allies perception of us in this one case. In a broader context I would however suggest that a large number of small relatively inconsequential decisions can in aggregate have a large negative impact if one is not careful.

Like, man, I dunno. Literally everyone who keeps bringing up the concept of how this'll affect our standing with our allies comes across like a fire inspector trying to tell me it's a hazard to keep my coffee pot plugged in, when the building is currently on fire.

Our relative standing in the eyes of our allies is affected by our retention, procurement, maintenance, training and recruitment crises. That's what makes us look unprofessional and unreliable. Not beards. Not coloured hair. Not nailpolish or eyebrow rings. Not whether or not we have a hat on when saluting.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Like, man, I dunno. Literally everyone who keeps bringing up the concept of how this'll affect our standing with our allies comes across like a fire inspector trying to tell me it's a hazard to keep my coffee pot plugged in, when the building is currently on fire.

Our relative standing in the eyes of our allies is affected by our retention, procurement, maintenance, training and recruitment crises. That's what makes us look unprofessional and unreliable. Not beards. Not coloured hair. Not nailpolish or eyebrow rings. Not whether or not we have a hat on when saluting.

It's a valid point though. Sometimes it's the small stuff; like not being able to get glow sticks, PW cuffs, transport, lunch for a crew transitioning through, etc.

We get a lot done despite our shortcomings by appealing to our allies sense of duty, but more importantly kinship. If they see us as a bunch of wankers they're going to fuck us off.

 

[Brad Sallows]

We don't control how other people judge us.

"We have a lot of other credibility issues; we don't need to worry too much about this one" is wishful thinking.

 

[dimsum]

Which is why garrison dress was created!

Now you’ve done it.

 

[Fabius]

So based on some posts here, as I understand the argument the ideal CAF dress policy can be summarized as follows:

1. Does not unduly inconvenience anyone from being their authentic self;

2. Unduly inconvenienced will be determined by the local CoC using their best judgment;

3. The members authentic self will have primacy over the standard as long as they are not sloppy.

4. Sloppy will be determined the member and the local CoC in reference to a picture book of allowed authentic selfs as determined by a to be published standard.

5. The standard shall allow for and support social customs such as long hair for females but shall not subscribe to social norms as to unprofessional appearances such as ZZ top beards, facial piercings or tattoos.

6. Operational necessity for safety purposes may be considered as a time limited requirement to amend one’s authentic self IAW a COs direction.

7. Operational necessity is not to include one’s ability to interact, engage with or have the respect of any allies, host forces, government agencies or the public.

8. In the event of a conflict between the members authentic self and the CoC, the CoC shall submit its requests for adjudication to the ombudsman. ( This is my recommendation )

I’m thinking it’s ready for a CANFOFGEN.

 

[NavalMoose]

So based on some posts here, as I understand the argument the ideal CAF dress policy can be summarized as follows:

1. Does not unduly inconvenience anyone from being their authentic self;

2. Unduly inconvenienced will be determined by the local CoC using their best judgment;

3. The members authentic self will have primacy over the standard as long as they are not sloppy.

4. Sloppy will be determined the member and the local CoC in reference to a picture book of allowed authentic selfs as determined by a to be published standard.

5. The standard shall allow for and support social customs such as long hair for females but shall not subscribe to social norms as to unprofessional appearances such as ZZ top beards, facial piercings or tattoos.

6. Operational necessity for safety purposes may be considered as a time limited requirement to amend one’s authentic self IAW a COs direction.

7. Operational necessity is not to include one’s ability to interact, engage with or have the respect of any allies, host forces, government agencies or the public.

8. In the event of a conflict between the members authentic self and the CoC, the CoC shall submit its requests for adjudication to the ombudsman. ( This is my recommendation )

I’m thinking it’s ready for a CANFOFGEN.

Nailed it.

 

[daftandbarmy]

So based on some posts here, as I understand the argument the ideal CAF dress policy can be summarized as follows:

1. Does not unduly inconvenience anyone from being their authentic self;

2. Unduly inconvenienced will be determined by the local CoC using their best judgment;

3. The members authentic self will have primacy over the standard as long as they are not sloppy.

4. Sloppy will be determined the member and the local CoC in reference to a picture book of allowed authentic selfs as determined by a to be published standard.

5. The standard shall allow for and support social customs such as long hair for females but shall not subscribe to social norms as to unprofessional appearances such as ZZ top beards, facial piercings or tattoos.

6. Operational necessity for safety purposes may be considered as a time limited requirement to amend one’s authentic self IAW a COs direction.

7. Operational necessity is not to include one’s ability to interact, engage with or have the respect of any allies, host forces, government agencies or the public.

8. In the event of a conflict between the members authentic self and the CoC, the CoC shall submit its requests for adjudication to the ombudsman. ( This is my recommendation )

I’m thinking it’s ready for a CANFOFGEN.

 

[KevinB]

Apparently this is being used to guide the new RCN policy on shipboard facial hair.
View attachment 85839

What if the length of one’s Walrus drops below the chin— just asking for @PPCLI Guy

 

[ueo]

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?

What changes will be needed for your proposal in terms of how the CAF salutes officers?

Boy Scout salute reduced by 2/3s!

 

[lenaitch]

Boy Scout salute reduced by 2/3s!

That took me a minute. Well done.