4
4
0
I was reading the Army times and it was talking about the racial backlash towards the new AR 670-1 female grooming standards. Is it really so wrong for the Army to provide more guidance on grooming standards when it pertains to a certain group of people?
Thousands of soldiers and others have signed a White House petition calling for the president to order the Army to reconsider just-released appearance and grooming regulations they contend are 'raci...
Thousands of soldiers and others have signed a White House petition calling for the president to order the Army to reconsider just-released appearance and grooming regulations they contend are 'raci...
Posted in these groups: 
EO
EO
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 59
37
37
0
<p>It is not racially biased. What this does is eliminate any confusion over the "gray areas" in the regulation. If you feel it is being biased then you were probably on the wrong side of right to begin with. </p><p><br></p><p>Furthermore, not only is it not racist, it's not even sexist. There are a ton of changes aimed at males. To include many that affect a bunch of the "Old Timers". So much so, that even my DCSM changed how he wears his hair in order to be in compliance with the new regulation.</p><p><br></p><p>The whole notion of "I’ve been in the military six years, I’ve had my hair natural four years, and
it’s never been out of regulation." is akin to a serial (insert your choice) saying, "I've been doing this for 10 years and nobody said anything about it". Just because nobody told you it was wrong doesn't mean it wasn't wrong. Now you are being told in black and white it is wrong, so if you are wrong, you're wrong. Fix it and drive on.</p><p><br></p><p>Besides this new version of 670-1 is nearly word for word identical to the USMC appearance standards. I haven't heard anyone call the Marine Corps racist. </p>
it’s never been out of regulation." is akin to a serial (insert your choice) saying, "I've been doing this for 10 years and nobody said anything about it". Just because nobody told you it was wrong doesn't mean it wasn't wrong. Now you are being told in black and white it is wrong, so if you are wrong, you're wrong. Fix it and drive on.</p><p><br></p><p>Besides this new version of 670-1 is nearly word for word identical to the USMC appearance standards. I haven't heard anyone call the Marine Corps racist. </p>
(37)
(0)
(1)
(1)
SSG (Join to see)
<p>PFC Williams, </p><p> </p><p>http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/djames.htm</p><p> </p><p>It is a direct quote from a very decorated hero. </p><p> </p><p>Here is some information for you to review. </p><div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/anc-top2.gif"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a href="http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/djames.htm" target="_blank">Daniel Chappie James, General, United States Air Force</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">Biography of General James</div></div><div style="clear: both;"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div>
(4)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Enough say 1SG
26
26
0
As a Soldier for almost 20 years I have seen it all. I welcome this clarification in AR 670-1. I was so tired of correcting females of all races on their hair and the only thing I had to back me up was that it looked unprofessional and fadish.
(26)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google