Posted on Apr 18, 2019
Can a platoon sgt tell a female soldier that she is required to wear a bra when in civilians?
142K
1.97K
743
453
453
0
I am a female in the army current on rotation over seas. I was just told by my team leader that my platoon Sgt (female) told him that I need to start wearing a bra while off duty. in the clothes that I wear, you can't see my nipple or even the color of my nipple nor do I wear revealing or low cut shirts. At the most, you can just see that I am simply not wearing one. Nowhere in any reg does it say it’s required not even in uniform. Can she tell me to do so?
Civilians
DA Pam 670-1
Women in the Military
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 404
5
5
0
SSG Leslie Patterson
Not necessarily looking at her boobs but making sure that when this soldier is in civilian attire.it will not be a distraction. Let's face it women are built in different sizes and if they look tacky then it can be corrected. There are civilian clothes that is very suggestive. AR 670-10 is updated yearly. Then the BN could have it's own memorandum. I honestly think it must be a distraction to even be brought up.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
First of all, bras are out. You never mentioned your size, either. If you have large breasts and your tits are swinging in the breeze, wear a close-fitting camisole. You can continue ticking her off or you can go ahead... get a comfy bralette and next time she asks if you’re wearing one, say, “I don’t know why you’re so taken with my breasts but, as matter fact, I DO have on a bra. With matching panties/thong even. This is your last warning... your continued interest in my underwear is undesired and I consider it sexual harassment. I’ve already documented every instance of your harassment and I’m prepared to report you.” Then DO IT; report her.
NOTE: if you’re in the Middle East or countries where women bind their breasts in public - put on a damned bra! In some of those countries you can be thrown in jail for causing rape just for being there.
NOTE: if you’re in the Middle East or countries where women bind their breasts in public - put on a damned bra! In some of those countries you can be thrown in jail for causing rape just for being there.
(5)
(0)
MSG Barbara Hensley Lawson
SGT Russell Chewning Yes, I proudly admit that I am of the old guard. I knew when I joined the military that there would be rules and regulations that I might not agree with on a personal level but if I or anyone else was not in any danger of losing life or limb than, as a ranking NCO it was my duty to enforce those rules and regulations whether I agreed with them or not. Why would anyone encourage a subordinate to disrespect a senior NCO for such a petty incident. 1SG's and CO's have much more serious issues to address than whether a female soldier is wearing a bra or not. There are too many unknowns in this example like are they overseas, are they in a country where women are oppressed. This entire situation should not have been aired on a media like RallyPoint to begin with. Too unimportant and too petty.
(1)
(0)
MSG Barbara Hensley Lawson
SGT Heidi Blake I admit my time in the military was quite awhile ago. However, the sentiment is the same. Why did you join the military if you do not follow the rules and regulations. If it's in the dress code, then enforce it. If it's not and the soldier isn't a 48EEE, then drop it. This is a BS incident and should be handled at squad level, period. Do your job or get out. There is no room in the military for anyone not willing to follow rules and regulations unless serious injury, loss of limb or life is imminent.
(1)
(0)
SGT Russell Chewning
MSG Barbara Hensley Lawson - Apparently it is NOT unimportant to a whole lot of people, judging by the level of discussion it is generating.
And America wasn't exactly founded on submitting to authority in an unquestioning manner. If the policy is sound, and actually serves a valid purpose, it ought to easily withstand a good natured challenge, don't you think? I seem to remember something in Full Metal Jacket about the military not wanting unthinking robots.
I have directly questioned the decision of my Platoon Sergeant once as an E-4, got peeled off at P.T. the next morning to get a chewing out, asked for permission to respond frankly, and then told him straight up he was a micromanager, and that everyone in his platoon resented him for not trusting his E-6s to evaluate the work of the platoon, and release them at the same time the rest of the company was released at the end of the day. Prior to that, the entire platoon had to wait for him to find the time to check our tasks at the end of the day, and if that happened to be an hour after the rest of the company was released, oh well? I told him that was the reason none of the E-4s in the platoon were going to the board, because why on earth would one take on all the extra work, and still be treated like a private? He obviously treated his E-6s like privates.
He basically locked me up again, and got a closing lecture. The next week, the E-6s began being the NCOs to evaluate our tasks at the end of the day and release us if it was completed to their satisfaction. I went to the board a few months later, along with a number of my fellow E-4s.
Of course, this is highly dependent on the type of unit one is in. Some, it would get you an Article 15. I worked in Signal in a very technical MOS, and as I learned in Management classes later in college, knowledge workers, generally of high IQ, DO NOT respond well to being micromanaged. Just tell us what you need done, and leave us alone. We are smart enough to figure it out on our own. Good managers recognize this. Sometimes, as in my case, a bad manager can be turned into a good manager by a subordinate with courage.
Micromanaging whether a woman wears a bra on her own damn free time, when the physical safety of the female is not in question, and it does not affect job performance, is pure and simple, bad management.
And America wasn't exactly founded on submitting to authority in an unquestioning manner. If the policy is sound, and actually serves a valid purpose, it ought to easily withstand a good natured challenge, don't you think? I seem to remember something in Full Metal Jacket about the military not wanting unthinking robots.
I have directly questioned the decision of my Platoon Sergeant once as an E-4, got peeled off at P.T. the next morning to get a chewing out, asked for permission to respond frankly, and then told him straight up he was a micromanager, and that everyone in his platoon resented him for not trusting his E-6s to evaluate the work of the platoon, and release them at the same time the rest of the company was released at the end of the day. Prior to that, the entire platoon had to wait for him to find the time to check our tasks at the end of the day, and if that happened to be an hour after the rest of the company was released, oh well? I told him that was the reason none of the E-4s in the platoon were going to the board, because why on earth would one take on all the extra work, and still be treated like a private? He obviously treated his E-6s like privates.
He basically locked me up again, and got a closing lecture. The next week, the E-6s began being the NCOs to evaluate our tasks at the end of the day and release us if it was completed to their satisfaction. I went to the board a few months later, along with a number of my fellow E-4s.
Of course, this is highly dependent on the type of unit one is in. Some, it would get you an Article 15. I worked in Signal in a very technical MOS, and as I learned in Management classes later in college, knowledge workers, generally of high IQ, DO NOT respond well to being micromanaged. Just tell us what you need done, and leave us alone. We are smart enough to figure it out on our own. Good managers recognize this. Sometimes, as in my case, a bad manager can be turned into a good manager by a subordinate with courage.
Micromanaging whether a woman wears a bra on her own damn free time, when the physical safety of the female is not in question, and it does not affect job performance, is pure and simple, bad management.
(1)
(0)
SPC Stiv ChenRobbins
SGT Russell Chewning - Social media, folks will discuss any old thing. Some folks will, of course, make it into a full-time career and make six-paragraph replies to every single comment they disagree with. :shrug:
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
4
4
0
I would like to comment on this. The others have sited regulation, rules and policies, I agree with all that. My comment is this, Your in the United States Military (regardless of branch). You chose to work for and abide by a completely different way of life. The US Military is not selling insurance for Farmers Insurance and therefore you have a 9-5 job. You are essentially government property. Do what your instructed to do. There are procedures in place to properly challenge an order given by a superior. Defiance is not one of them.
There are sometimes misconceptions about military life. One of those is this.... Being "off duty" is not the same as being off work as it is in the civilian life. Off duty simply means your presence is not required (for a certain amount of time), or take some free time. Your still a soldier 24/7.
That being said and if its not an emergency, you do what your instructed and then question the order when its proper to do so. But let me stress, comply first.
(disclaimer: I have no real opinion on this particular case involving the wearing of a bra or not, my comments are meant to be more broad)
There are sometimes misconceptions about military life. One of those is this.... Being "off duty" is not the same as being off work as it is in the civilian life. Off duty simply means your presence is not required (for a certain amount of time), or take some free time. Your still a soldier 24/7.
That being said and if its not an emergency, you do what your instructed and then question the order when its proper to do so. But let me stress, comply first.
(disclaimer: I have no real opinion on this particular case involving the wearing of a bra or not, my comments are meant to be more broad)
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
The US Armed Forces needs to get out of the business of attempting to 'legislate' morality. I has NEVER and WILL NEVER work. You will NOT change human nature no matter how hard you try. As a Det Cdr my SOP was "When hosting a member of the opposite sex, your barracks door must remain open at least 3 inches". Do you REALLY believe that stopped ANYTHING between two consenting YOUNG, teenage, adults? Uh, NO. Everyone here remember GO 1, the "Thou shall not drink, curse or have relations with members of the opposite sex while in a combat theater of operations" that came out in Desert Shield/Storm and in some form or other still exists? Well, did it stop anything? NO. In fact, having served as the Law Enforcement OPS Officer, VII Corps Rear Provost Marshal in the desert, if anything, it INCREASED incidents of 'all of the above' because it became a challenge to see who could get away with it. That means its only effective if you GET CAUGHT. However, even after all this, there is still the belief that somehow, some day, the military will actually be able to control human nature via SOP. When the Armed Forces have to resort to 'got you' regulations - there is a problem on the front end and its blatant the military simply can't keep up with the evolution of each new generation.
(4)
(0)
COL John Hudson
Phil, I hear you. 30 years Army (Vietnam, Balkan, Iraq) proved to me that boys & girls will always do what hormones drive them to. However, behavioral guidelines must put a line in the sand somewhere. Obviously, deployments away from the morality confinement of home station can't be an open invitation to lose control. Yes, there'll always be the few cases to address and make examples of...that's expected to happen. The individuals caught "In Flagrante Delicto" are a vast minority with a propensity toward such acts even when in the civilian arena. During my Command assignments, I ensured proper guidance was posted and always communicated openly to make certain that such issues remained small in number...best I could do in the face of hormones!. John
(2)
(0)
LTC Philip Marlowe
I understand your position John, what I saw was that, in these and other theaters of operations, including training, the focus was on 'behavior' which translated to the troop: 'how can I get over on GO 1" instead of focusing on the conflict at hand. Not saying it was a total redirection of focus, but I observed all levels of rank engaged in behaviors one wouldn't normally expect to see because there was so much EMPHASIS on it. I subscribe to the theory of what happens when you tell a child "do not do that"...well, they do it. When you treat ADULTS like children, they will do everything in their power to live up to your expectations of them. I think as much as anything, it was a shift in the focus on "Action / Consequences" from the INDIVIDUAL to the GROUP. When you create the environment where the entire organization gets hammered because of the actions of a single individual, then the tendency is to police the group, but not from the perspective one might imagine. They simply drive the behavior underground (covert). You're correct John, the individuals 'caught' only got caught because they were not as capable of acting on their impulses in a more covert fashion. Example: Basic trainees - Male/Female - getting caught in a dipsy dumpster....NOT SMART. You are correct again, we simply maintained 'proper guidance' and trusted that WE as leaders could direct the focus of the unit - even though that was occasionally tantamount to a herding cats!
(1)
(0)
SGT Russell Chewning
Holy crap. An actual intelligent response. You sir, win. I have been so disappointed reading the posts of all these leaders supporting this regulation.
(1)
(0)
LTC Philip Marlowe
SGT Chewning, thank you. I drew the line at the Army telling me, a 50 year old Lieutenant Colonel I couldn't have a drink if I wanted one, and I'm not a drinker. I thought the same in DS/S as well. Unfortunately, GO1 made the US military pretty much a laughing stock (not militarily, but 'adult' wise) among out allies - especially the Brits, Germans and French.
(3)
(0)
4
4
0
Stuff like this never came to my attention through official channels as a commander because it is very petty. But I will say this. Quit your whining and wear the damn bra so it doesn’t go to your commander. We as military members have a standard we must present 24/7 in or out of uniform on base. I never could appreciate selfishness by a soldier they are more problem than benefit.
(4)
(0)
SGT Russell Chewning
Yes, because women should just go along with male-dominated policy, as long as it has at least a thin claim on relevance. No matter how utterly discriminatory it may be. Question..... Do you encourage your platoon sergeants to counsel your male soldiers for showing nippage on a chilly autumn morning at P.T.?
I bet you don't. And I bet you'd lose your sh*t on any PSG that tried to counsel a soldier for that. It's amazing to me that leaders of such high rank can't see the inherent discrimination and bias against female soldiers. The ONLY case in which a female should be counseled to wear a bra is in an overseas location where there are local laws, or in a country where female rights are not observed, such as some middle eastern countries. Which is not clear from the OP, I think.
I see a lot of lame excuses about this being about preserving unit cohesion... Because as we all know, even with all the sexual harassment education, that male soldiers simply can't control their hormones if they see a nipple, right? They become rape-machines. (/sarcasm)
Do we counsel male soldiers with large penises who wear tight pants? I am betting we don't. It may be a ridiculous comparison, but it IS relevant. This policy is about seeing the female form as a sexual object, nothing more.
I bet you don't. And I bet you'd lose your sh*t on any PSG that tried to counsel a soldier for that. It's amazing to me that leaders of such high rank can't see the inherent discrimination and bias against female soldiers. The ONLY case in which a female should be counseled to wear a bra is in an overseas location where there are local laws, or in a country where female rights are not observed, such as some middle eastern countries. Which is not clear from the OP, I think.
I see a lot of lame excuses about this being about preserving unit cohesion... Because as we all know, even with all the sexual harassment education, that male soldiers simply can't control their hormones if they see a nipple, right? They become rape-machines. (/sarcasm)
Do we counsel male soldiers with large penises who wear tight pants? I am betting we don't. It may be a ridiculous comparison, but it IS relevant. This policy is about seeing the female form as a sexual object, nothing more.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
I say she is absolutely within her right. Since you are deployed and I bet it's part of a packing list?
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
Unforutately, yes. The same with wearing underwear by men or at least a cup to hold in the "boys", so to speak. This all comes down to that being a distraction while off-duty. Sure, you can go bra-less in your own room or house; but when you're out public, whether in or out of the official uniforms, you still represent us and need to carry yourself in a manner which best represents us all.
That's the reason why the Army has standards for grooming, body art, and clothing -- because some how, some way, people will KNOW you are "in the service" and will judge ALL OF US -- not just you -- on what you wear (or in this case, don't wear) while representing us.
I am sure that someone here can quote the specifics as far the "regs" are concerned. Just remember what your DI told you and me: "you are a part of this Army 24/7/365, even in your sleep you're Army!"
That's the reason why the Army has standards for grooming, body art, and clothing -- because some how, some way, people will KNOW you are "in the service" and will judge ALL OF US -- not just you -- on what you wear (or in this case, don't wear) while representing us.
I am sure that someone here can quote the specifics as far the "regs" are concerned. Just remember what your DI told you and me: "you are a part of this Army 24/7/365, even in your sleep you're Army!"
(4)
(0)
SGT Russell Chewning
Only, I am pretty sure no well-endowed male soldier has ever been counseled for wearing tight pants while off-duty. This is a very simple matter of the military considering women's breasts to be purely sexual objects, and putting the burden on the female to manage the sexual urges of those who might view them. So, apparently, such enforcement really only goes against females. It is embarrassing to me as a former service member to see so many officers and upper enlisted leaders supporting this regulation. It only has a place in overseas hostile to the rights of females. It is ironic, that many Americans on this forum advocate for the continued restriction of these females to pursue comfort as they see fit in their off time.
(2)
(0)
COL John Hudson
SGT Russell Chewning - I don't agree with your assessment. "Endowment' is NOT a factor of proper UCMJ grooming regulation regardless of gender. "PRESENTATION" is. How one presents and behaves themselves speaks LOUDLY! Yes, we all recognize gender differences but account for them in the manner of our behavior and the military environment we exist in (held in check by UCMJ guidance). Or, at least we are supposed to. There will ALWAYS be someone pushing any and every envelop, like it or not. Bottom line = proper dress and behavior will ALWAYS be recognized with respect while holding hormones in check. Loose dress and equally loose behavior is a virtual guarantee of potential unfavorable attention. What's done in the privacy of one's home is no one's business - what happens outside in public affects ALL service members.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Unforutately, yes. The same with wearing underwear by men or at least a cup to hold in the "boys", so to speak. This all comes down to that being a distraction while off-duty. Sure, you can go bra-less in your own room or house; but when you're out public, whether in or out of the official uniforms, you still represent us and need to carry yourself in a manner which best represents us all.
That's the reason why the Army has standards for grooming, body art, and clothing -- because some how, some way, people will KNOW you are "in the service" and will judge ALL OF US -- not just you -- on what you wear (or in this case, don't wear) while representing us.
I am sure that someone here can quote the specifics as far the "regs" are concerned. Just remember what your DI told you and me: "you are a part of this Army 24/7/365, even in your sleep you're Army!"
That's the reason why the Army has standards for grooming, body art, and clothing -- because some how, some way, people will KNOW you are "in the service" and will judge ALL OF US -- not just you -- on what you wear (or in this case, don't wear) while representing us.
I am sure that someone here can quote the specifics as far the "regs" are concerned. Just remember what your DI told you and me: "you are a part of this Army 24/7/365, even in your sleep you're Army!"
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
I want to address the conversation regarding a male delivering a uniform correction order to a female.
While a sensitive area and one where I said the female PSG had put the male Section Leader in a challenging spot, gibe we are striving for equality, I think we start by removing female and male from the statements.
Therefore, a PSG gave an order to a Section Leader who gave a soldier an order.
I have had to give uncomfortable orders to males and females alike. I agree one must really think through how to deliver such an order in order to obtain the intended result, which includes the recipient not feeling like the order was harassment, but one intended to maintain good order and discipline.
And the individual soldiers/military members must understand that they gave up the majority of their individual expression in civilian attire when they joined.
And you can bet you’re being judged in the civilian job market as well. While someone may not correct you, you can spend years wondering why you are not advancing.
So it comes down to good order and discipline, career aspirations, and individual expression. They are not all equal in priority when it comes to the workplace.
While a sensitive area and one where I said the female PSG had put the male Section Leader in a challenging spot, gibe we are striving for equality, I think we start by removing female and male from the statements.
Therefore, a PSG gave an order to a Section Leader who gave a soldier an order.
I have had to give uncomfortable orders to males and females alike. I agree one must really think through how to deliver such an order in order to obtain the intended result, which includes the recipient not feeling like the order was harassment, but one intended to maintain good order and discipline.
And the individual soldiers/military members must understand that they gave up the majority of their individual expression in civilian attire when they joined.
And you can bet you’re being judged in the civilian job market as well. While someone may not correct you, you can spend years wondering why you are not advancing.
So it comes down to good order and discipline, career aspirations, and individual expression. They are not all equal in priority when it comes to the workplace.
(3)
(0)
PO1 Chad Alcock
You'd be surprised how many people I speak with that are surprised they aren't getting hired and their appearance is a big part of it. I then have a conversation on proper interviewing etc.
(3)
(0)
GySgt (Join to see)
PO1 Chad Alcock absolutely. The challenge many people have today is that they insist that people must accept and agree with them. Hehehe. Bottom line is no they/we don’t have to do either. We either vocally or silently disagree with them —- resulting in less than stellar reviews, not being hired, or not being promoted. Culture is a rather selective entity. Lol
(2)
(0)
PO1 Chad Alcock
I helped a veteran get hired with another service provider and she didn't make it through the probationary period because she couldn't / wouldn't adapt to their way of doing things. And this was after me having conversations with her about that very thing.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google