AR 670-1 Racially Biased?

PFC Williams,

I don't see how anyone can say that the system is misogynistic or racially biased.  People are, for sure, but it's a lot harder to pin it on the entire Army and/or one of its regulations.  Here are some examples of wear and appearance that are different between different groups of people:

-Why don't women have to shave their heads when they go to BCT?  Historically, we shaved our heads to limit lice in a barracks.  Nowadays, we do it for comradery.

-Why do black men get shaving profiles while white men with the same condition (pseudofoliculitis) often don't?  I have this problem and have been denied shaving profiles in the past (Until I got an infection, then they would give it to me).

-Why can a Muslim chaplain wear a full beard because of religious reasons but other men can't?  I was told early in my career that we couldn't grow beards because our Pro-Masks wouldn't fit over them.

Frankly, if you have a problem with a regulation because you think it unfairly targets you or a group to which you belong, you have an avenue to make a change.  The easiest step would be to write a carefully-worded change request to the following, which is found on the first page (After the changes) of every Army Regulation:

Suggested improvements. Users are
invited to send comments and suggested
improvements on DA Form 2028 (Recomm
e n d e d C h a n g e s t o P u b l i c a t i o n s a n d
Blank Forms) directly to Deputy Chief of
Staff, G–1 (DAPE–HRI), 300 Army Pentagon,
Washington, DC 22310-0300.

If you don't know how to fill out the form or are unsure of how to handle it, ask your NCOIC.  If they don't know, follow the NCO Support Chain to the 1SG/SGM/CSM and you will find help.  Also, you can ask if people on this site have ever been involved in a DA 2028.  I have no experience with this but I am sure that if you asked for help, you would get it.

Admitedly, I am neither black or a woman woman so I can only take my own experiences and offer them here.  I am a minority in the Army and I have felt oppressed several times in my career.  I have done some things to alleviate this problem and have been turned down for some changes I requested.  I don't know if filling out a DA 2028 will help to address the problem, but it is a good first step to take.  I suggest you do so and then come back and update us here.

I saw this on the ticker of Good Morning America this morning.

And so it begins...what about the biased against those Soldiers who like getting tattooed or whatever other group you can come up with to say the new AR 670-1 is "bad" in one way or another.  Here are your choices everyone, comply and continue to do great work for this country, not comply and receive some sort of UCMJ punishment or comply and just not reenlist when the time comes and do whatever the heck you want with your body and/or hair.  

No way is it racially biased. I knew MANY white WM's who wore their hair in a French braid, because it kept it neat and orderly. The Black WM's I knew, rarely had hair long enough to use braids, but the two that I was aware of, kept their hair in a tight bun on duty, just as the rest of us did.
I can honestly say, I never saw any WM's who used corn rows or twists because it added to the hat size, and who wanted to buy more uniform parts?

The Army has standards for a reason. It is not here for people to join in order to look pretty or be on display. If you want to be a model, leave the Army and go be model. For too long I have seen Leaders too afraid to correct a female Soldier because they fear the possible repercussions. The same goes for the males. If wearing your hair spiked, with multiple body piercings and crazy amounts of tattoos is for you then you're in the wrong profession. The tattoo policy was in effect when I first joined the Army. Because of two wars Leaders chose to ignore the policy in order to get maximum recruitment for those wars. Hair and nail standards were already in place prior to the new 670-1. This standard is nothing new, at most it just clarifies what was already in place and what should have been enforced from the jump.

The hairstyles they showed that could not be worn, i have worn all of them and had not trouble wearing a PC, beret or PRO-Mask.  I know some hairstyles go a little far but the reg has gone a lil extreme. I guess we will have to adapt and overcome. Like anything else it will change again.

Does anyone other than me realize that it's basically against regulation for black women to wear their hair as it naturally grows?

<font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">

</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Calibri">BLUF...If you are a soldier prior to 9/11 all that has
happened is that they have merely given some clarity to the regulation. Prior
to 9/11 you were not allowed to have tattoos on the back of your hands, your
neck, or any other place on your body that gave off an unprofessional appearance.
If I’m not mistaken it was only allowed if you were a new soldier entering the
military and you already had it. </font></p><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">

</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font color="#000000"><font face="Calibri">Females had to keep their hair (just like the men) in a
military style and manner. In other words these were already ESTABLISHED STANDARDS
that became laxed and convoluted to accommodate the need to plus up numbers at
the start of the War. In fact I will take it a step further and say that not
only did they become laxed, soldiers along with leadership started to simply ignore
good order and discipline and allowed this to get to the stage that it’s at
now. What the SMA has done is to try and bring us back on track. We as leaders
should explain to these soldiers that this is in no way, shape, form or fashion
racially biased. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span></font></font></font></p><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">

</font>

I read a comment earlier that says "you joined the Army, the Army did't joined you". We have to adhere to the standards rather we like it or not. Any time there is a change on a regulation there'sa BIG BOOM and commotion for a few months and suddenly nobody speaks about it. Who can forget all the commotion when the semi-centralized promotion rules changed a few years ago and lot of people lost hundredds of point for E5 and E6? If you are an S1 Soldier you know what I'm talking about. It is always going to be like this. I can't wait for an update to AR 600-9. It is going to be epic.  Regarding 670-1,  I myself have a tattoo below the elbow and I'm willing to remove it only if the case comes that the tattoo hinders a future position or rank.

The rules are the rules, follow them and ANY soldier will do fine in the military.