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
4
4
0
When the Army let that Sikh soldier get away with not shaving and getting haircuts, they opened a Pandora's box ......
(4)
(0)
SGT Suraj Dave
My point still stands. The meaning behind my statement was that because one person gets special treatment, others will seek it. <br><br>Those Sikh soldiers though, they got one over on us. Think about the money they will save from not shaving everyday and getting haircuts weekly..... I should have said I was Sikh when I was in the Army.... Would have saved me around a thousand dollars in razors, shaving cream, and haircut's...
(2)
(0)
SGT Suraj Dave
There shouldn't be any kind of exemption for anyone. Part of being in the Military is living to a standard. If your religious beliefs go against the military standard, then keep walking. Are we going to start recruiting Jehovah Witness's and giving them "religious exemptions" for fighting in war?
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Kinda off topic BUT...... I and many other male soldiers will NEVER be able to grow or wear our hair like we want to and still be in regulation. Why should it be any different for females? If you cant maintain your current hairstyle within regs, change your hairstyle. Plenty of females are within regs. Just because you dont like the way it looks matters none. I look like a 12 year old with a short haircut and hate it, I think I look better with a beard, but the Army demands I shave and wear my hair short so I comply. Whats so hard about that if the army says no (however long/think/styled) braids and you cant maintain your hair unless its braided that way then cut it. Simple.
"Females with natural hair take strides to style their natural hair in a professional manner when necessary; however, changes to AR 670-1 offer little to no options for females with natural hair,” she said in her petition."
It all boils down to how she WANTS to STYLE her hair. 670-1 offers plenty of options she just doesn't like the options.
As far as being racist. Am i to think when the medic requires me to carry sunscreen he is being racist? or do I just realize it still applies to everyone else just the same.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Bottom line this is just another excuse for those Soldiers that have for years never been properly corrected by NCOs or Officers because many were afraid to make a correction because they were either going to be accused of being either racist or sexist have allowed the lax culture to be progressed to the point that now that it is in black and white print, it has nothing to do with race but standards that haven't been enforced for a good part of the past decade due to being more concerned with dual wars and deployments instead of normal military standards.
Cut and dried now that standards are in writing instead of "hearsay" or what it used to be, the offenders that haven't had to comply are now going to be forced to and they don't like it.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
The new 670-1 being racially biased is total BS. If it's racist, then it is also sexist because there are different standards for males and females.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I have 2 black female soldiers that have had a few discussions with me about this issue. Now that the reg is out There will probably be an office sit down. We will see after such a sensing session. I think that it is important that while we adhere to the standards that the army gives us, no matter how arduous. On the other hand, it is our responsibility as leaders to help our leaders make good decisions by providingrelevant feedback.
(3)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
All true, LT. But you don't take a row boat out into a Typhoon. Pick your fights. The only relevant feedback in this situation is, "WILCO."
(7)
(0)
1SG Jason Fitzpatrick
To jump in on that comment, The Standard Bearer of the Unit is the First Sergeant and the NCO support channel. Don't take a rowboat out into a typhoon...that is funny. A good Platoon Sergeant would have stopped him from pushing off into the storm!
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
LT, great question.
Here is my position on the racially biased comments. Let me start by saying that I was not impacted by the changes in AR 670-1. Secondly, nor as a leader could I stand by while people fail to adapt and overcome. Finally,I do not believe that the changes in AR 670-1 is not and was not created to be racially bias; rather to create firm standards.
Now that I have stated my position on where I fall into this. Let me give you a better understanding as to why it maybe perceived that way. The biggest issue is that while majority male or female only have to cut or style their hair differently to meet compliance. The "Naturalist" hair would have to subject their hair to wigs, chemicals, and/or artificial extensions to be in regulation. Which is one expensive, two damaging to people's hair. Finally, on a deeper level suggests that the ideal hair type is that not of their natural birth. Most "kinky" hair grows out versus straight down. The concept that "kinky" hair is unprofessional or not suited in uniform could be the reason why racial implications is perceived here.
Is it wrong for the Army to make standards? Absolutely not. As a Soldier, you must comply or simply face the implications of your decision. As leaders we must be able to see all points of view and be impartial. So, while I wouldn't dismiss someone who is feeling that way. I would remind them that the Army Appearance is to create a uniformed look. It does not fit well with individuality. It does not sway based on physiological differences. Could the Army have done a better job of incorporating some of these physiological difference? Yes, but there is no way that 100% of people would be able to fall in a regulation designed to limit variations in grooming standards.
Part of being an Army Leader requires you to have high social intelligence. An Army Leader requires conflict management. People are entitled to their opinions that doesn't necessarily mean they won't comply. While we often require action versus conversation. The power to communicate change is important in our ever changing Army is necessary.
Here is my position on the racially biased comments. Let me start by saying that I was not impacted by the changes in AR 670-1. Secondly, nor as a leader could I stand by while people fail to adapt and overcome. Finally,I do not believe that the changes in AR 670-1 is not and was not created to be racially bias; rather to create firm standards.
Now that I have stated my position on where I fall into this. Let me give you a better understanding as to why it maybe perceived that way. The biggest issue is that while majority male or female only have to cut or style their hair differently to meet compliance. The "Naturalist" hair would have to subject their hair to wigs, chemicals, and/or artificial extensions to be in regulation. Which is one expensive, two damaging to people's hair. Finally, on a deeper level suggests that the ideal hair type is that not of their natural birth. Most "kinky" hair grows out versus straight down. The concept that "kinky" hair is unprofessional or not suited in uniform could be the reason why racial implications is perceived here.
Is it wrong for the Army to make standards? Absolutely not. As a Soldier, you must comply or simply face the implications of your decision. As leaders we must be able to see all points of view and be impartial. So, while I wouldn't dismiss someone who is feeling that way. I would remind them that the Army Appearance is to create a uniformed look. It does not fit well with individuality. It does not sway based on physiological differences. Could the Army have done a better job of incorporating some of these physiological difference? Yes, but there is no way that 100% of people would be able to fall in a regulation designed to limit variations in grooming standards.
Part of being an Army Leader requires you to have high social intelligence. An Army Leader requires conflict management. People are entitled to their opinions that doesn't necessarily mean they won't comply. While we often require action versus conversation. The power to communicate change is important in our ever changing Army is necessary.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I just want to know why women can grow beards and I can't! =o) I know I'M not making that on the spot correction.. That's an EO complaint waiting to happen... "PFC Ladybits, shave that beard!".
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
<P>I remember quite vividly a comment that was posed to my platoon by my old crusty platoon Sergeant... "All of you Soldiers that were drafted, please take one step forward." </P>
<P> </P>
<P>A lot to be said for that comment. Soldiers signed a contract to obey the orders of the Officers appointed over them in accordance with the rules, Regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.</P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P>A lot to be said for that comment. Soldiers signed a contract to obey the orders of the Officers appointed over them in accordance with the rules, Regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.</P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Long story sort, the new clarifications in the reg are to bring in line the small percentage of Soldier's not in keeping with the standards of professionalism of our institution. I persoanlly believe 99% of Soldiers ARE in compliance with the new reg, and were in compliance with the old one. But, the clarifications are aimed at bringing the other 1% into the fold. Many of us can remember seeing those Soldiers who have the wildly robust moustaches, or the female with the 2 inch long fingernails, or the one that had to use bobby pins to keep her headgear in place because she had 8lbs of hair in her head. But, we remember them because they were isolated incidents. That being said, if the shoe fits, wear it. If it is absolutely necessary for you to wear your hair exactly how you want it, be it twisted or long sideburns; you have to have 2 inch fngernails; you want to have gauged ear rings, then the choice is simple. Exit the military. But, you signed the contract, you agreed to the standards. So either get yourself within them or get out. No matter what color, race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. As someone stated pror, you joined the Army, the Army wasn't established for you.
(2)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
Good point! I remember about a decade back (!) waiting on a female Airman at MPF as she slowly typed in the computer due to her 2" nails. I told her she was going to have to cut them because they 1-were out of regs, & 2-were interfering with her job performance. She thought I was joking.
I insisted of all my Amn that no one's nails be past the tips of their fingers. Being in a maintenance career, it just made sense. However, our latest AFI changed that and allows for longer nails so it seems like a fight every time. I have had to explain more than I like that the reg is there for the standard.
The conversation with each new group always went the same, "If I see fit for reasons of safety or job efficiency to increase the requirement of those within my authority, then I can and will. For example, the reg says you can wear a watch; a bracelet of gold or silver, 1/4" width; no more than 3 rings total, etc. On machinery and electronics you won't wear any of them."
The reg is for guidance to make us all uniform... while in uniform!
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
PFC Williams,
Might is be better to further explain your point other than just giving the perceived "rant" about the new AR670-1 and DA PAM 670-1. Please give a concise critique that is free of emotion and I think that will give you a better understanding of why the regulation needed to be changed. Our senior leadership of the Army determined that many changes needed to happen in order for us to continue to be the professional Army we always were. These changes are just a small part of that vision and we will likely see more changes coming.
Would you feel the same way if AR 670-1 and DA PAM 670-1 told you that as a female you must wear a skirt, a dress or dress slacks all the time? The bottom line is that the SMA and the Chief of Staff for the Army decided a much needed changed was needed. As with change we can never please everybody but only hope to please the majority. I hope you enjoy your time in the military and learn a lot from your time serving. Don't let a small issue like this ruin your sense of pride or accomplishment.
Should you need further guidance or mentorship you can always reach out to me and I will help any way I can.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google