Grooming Standards: How did it come to this?

2013-10-29T09:44:06-04:00

I expect to catch a lot of "High & Tight" shaped heat rounds for this but I'm ready so fire away.  My question is simple.  I look back at the men and woman that served our country in the conflicts of the past, from the Revolutionary War all the way to Vietnam, and what do you see?  Brave men and woman who have the appearance of the modern professional of their time.  Do you know what I don't see?  That's right, High & Tights, shaved heads, and crew cuts.  When/why did the Army move away from maintaining a professional appearance that would fit in with any conservative Fortune 500 company of it's time to this idea that skin is the standard?  (Side note, the misinterpretation by leaders of AR 670-1 astounds me.  There is no 3 inch rule for hair length. Check it out.)  

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2013 10:50 AM

2013-10-29T10:50:18-04:00

Honestly certain grooming standards were implemented due to the rise of new types of warfare. Close cut hairstyles are less likely to be home to lice, which in the unclean environments we are often faced with on deployments can proliferate to unit and morale damaging levels. Facial hair regulations were instituted during times of chemical warfare, if you have even a small amount of facial hair in the area of the seal in your gas mask it will not seal properly. Honestly alot of the actual and "supposed" regulations that are enforced are ultimately for preventative measures or to maintain the look of a professional. Do I agree with them all, most definitely not, but I can understand why some of them are the way they are.

Response by SSG Lisa Rendina made Nov 9 at 2013 1:58 AM

2013-11-09T01:58:08-05:00

We can take it one step further as well when applied to female Soldiers.  Take a look at photos from WWII of WAVES, WACS, WASPS, etc.  These women look professional, groomed, and like women.  Today women are encouraged to look less like women and more like men.  We pull our hair back in severe buns (giving the same general appearance from the front of the head as our male counterparts), we wear often times ill-fitting uniforms because they were designed for men, we are limited on wear of makeup and nail polish, and are discouraged from acting "like a girl" all for the sake of "professionalism".  Now, I am not saying that there are not women in today's Army that would take an inch of freedom and run a mile with it, but is there really something so very wrong with being a women and looking like a woman?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 9 at 2013 2:10 AM

2013-11-09T02:10:39-05:00

I was just speaking to some co-workers about this same issue. I believe a lot of the extreme haircuts stem from the all-volunteer force and a growing us vs them (civilians) mentality.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Nov 9 at 2013 9:36 AM

2013-11-09T09:36:53-05:00

Aesthetics are much simpler to identify and enforce than work ethic, intelligence, and dedication.

Response by SSG Lisa Rendina made Nov 9 at 2013 12:26 PM

2013-11-09T12:26:53-05:00

2LT B,

You are right. While I was in I wore a small amount of make up in neutral colors and kept my fingernails polished and groomed. I did all of this within the limits of AR 670-1 because I am a woman and should look like a woman. Since I am no longer in the service the proposed changes to AR 670-1 do not affect me, however, I feel that the proposal of no makeup and no nail polish is counter productive and as a whole the Army has much bigger issues to tackle. As for what your DS said, I never experienced that particular sentiment. While deployed though as half of a dual-military couple rumors were widespread through the unit that my Husband and I were going through a divorce simply because we kept it professional in the office. Because co-workers did not see us "acting like a married couple" we must not be getting along. I have heard from other female Soldiers that the general stereotype of single females is that of "barracks s***t" even if it is furthest from the truth.

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made Nov 9 at 2013 1:45 PM

2013-11-09T13:45:47-05:00

I've seen this same type of discussion in the Corps, where high and tights are the norm. Personally the medium reg is a good way to go. Short enough to have the clean performance, and yet long enough to blend into most regular nonmilitary settings. I'd only recommend a high and tight aka the boot cut when deploying to someplace where showers and cleanliness is not expected something about going to places where sand, dirt, and grime are plentiful and soap, water, and shampoo are not that makes every hair follicle hurt from the slightest touch. I spent most of my time stationed out at 29 Palms. Another benefit of not going with the high and tight or any other extremely short cut is the odd tan line. When in civilian attire and uncovered those that wore their hair in high and tights often had a strange tan line caused by their their covers only partially covering their heads. Don't get me wrong I have no problem with high and tights, shaved heads, but a medium reg just makes more sense to me.<br>

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2014 9:46 PM

2014-01-18T21:46:51-05:00

I blame society and their ever imposing ideals they force on us. I also blame NCO's and our COC for failing to support an NCO/peer or leader who is actually trying to impose punishment when it is due. Instead, COC's usually just brush something under the table so as to avoid some b.s. PC complaint. When leaders do not get the support they expect, why should they keep trying to do whats right? I also blame the war, as we all know, Soldiers are becoming leaders without any actual experience. Just breathe for a certain amount of time have some points then bam there ya go SGT. And they do not know the standards to enforce, or how to apply them properly. It will be a great time watching everyone squirm with the Army going back to garrison and actually having to do whats right. You know, the basics.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2014 11:19 AM

2014-01-23T11:19:45-05:00

Check out the new wave of thinking from the DoD:

http://www.stripes.com/pentagon-oks-religion-based-grooming-standards-1.263435

Pentagon OKs religion-based grooming standards

The Pentagon has changed rules on religious items and religion-based physical attributes allowed while in uniform — including beards, some tattoos, and turbans.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2014 11:56 AM

2014-01-30T11:56:11-05:00

I'm on the same page with the initial post here.
however I understand we came to the point we are at in an effort to instill discipline and conformity.
I agree that it is possible to have a modern hairstyle and still be a presentable professional though.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Apr 30 at 2014 10:59 AM

2014-04-30T10:59:38-04:00

LT Brantley,
My take on this: The Army is stuck in a bit of a time warp, and wants it to be the 1950's (or earlier). When you look at what we endorse for a "professional" appearance, and cast an eye back to images from the 50's corporate world, you'll see what I mean.

Add to that the imperative to be politically correct (and it IS an imperative. We, as a part of the government, need to be in compliance with both what the elected officials AND the public view as acceptable), and you get a bi-polar and incoherent set of regs.

I generally tend to steer away from Army discussions about a "professional" appearance, because the Army has a vague, but vastly different definition of that word than what I see in the civilian sector. But it's not a hill I'm willing to die on. So I get a near-buzz cut every month before drill.

Why are we stuck in that mode? The link to GEN Wickham gives some good grounding, as does the fact that a lot of the people deciding what "professional" looks like have spent their entire lives in and of the Army, and are likely the 2nd or 3rd generation of a family that has done so. What we are getting as "professional" is the media images of what a professional looked like when they were growing up. We are going to get even more in this mode during the current drawdown....

As for the high&tight, simple answer - It looked cool in the 50's, and nobody is going to complain to their congressperson.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 12 at 2014 7:24 PM

2014-05-12T19:24:13-04:00

I keep my hair parted on the sides with a little length on top to comb; it is somewhat 1940ish looking and that is ok with me. I like keeping a neat and clean professional appearance furthermore when off duty I do not want to be immediately identified as a Soldier for security reasons.

I can see the advantage of the high and tight and other such cuts when it comes to hygiene in the field.

Response by Cpl Brett Wagner made Dec 18 at 2014 1:09 PM

2014-12-18T13:09:19-05:00

I have 3 uncles that served in WW II, Korea & Vietnam and none of the 3 had long hair. 2 of them kept crew cuts their entire lives.

Response by MAJ Keira Brennan made May 21 at 2015 2:41 PM

2015-05-21T14:41:49-04:00

How about maintaining uniformity per 670-1. Good Order and Discipline... LOL. Don't forget the "bulk and length" factor with regards to headgear fit. It also says "leaders can judge..." Damn LT - this ain't Burger King or the Bundeswehr LOL

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Apr 12 at 2016 8:54 PM

2016-04-12T20:54:37-04:00

Grooming and beards are Force Multipliers look at SF and Spec Ops, so how about showing an appearance that ensures survival out the wire and improves better relations with the locals within the Muslim countries we serve in.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2016 2:11 PM

2016-04-28T14:11:58-04:00

I keep my hair cut short simply because it is so much easier to maintain. shower in the morning, quick scrub with a towel and hair is done for the day. plus, I've had it short for so long that if it gets long enough to touch my ears or the back of my neck it gives me the willies....

Response by SSgt Charles Freeman made Apr 29 at 2016 7:37 PM

2016-04-29T19:37:38-04:00

I was never told to get a high and tight, and to my recollection I never instructed a Jr. Marine to get one. I wore them though because, as has been stated by other posters, it was easy to maintain. On a side not, I still get one every now and then.....lol.

Response by SFC David Pratt made May 6 at 2016 2:57 AM

2016-05-06T02:57:07-04:00

Did G. Washington rock a high n tight or a pony tail? For sanitary reasons I can understand the argument. Now that we have entered a new era of equal opportunity for genders.... I think if men are sporting a high and tight, women should as well. Having said that, don't take it personal LT. Your commander sets the uniform standards, to include grooming standards. They can always add to, but not take away from the regulation. Different units will insist on different standards. As a LT, you'll deal with a lot of shit before you are in a position to make the rules. What I would suggest is pick and choose your battles wisely: this battle is not worthy of that effort.

Response by SSG Dale London made May 6 at 2016 12:12 PM

2016-05-06T12:12:44-04:00

Tradition not withstanding, the rationale behind close cropped hair and clean shaves came about in the trenches in WW1 - long hair and beards interfered with the proper functioning of the gas mask. This has not changed. The styles adopted by soldiers, on the other hand, have.
It has never been the aim of the army to have its soldiers be indistinguishable from the civilian crowd; quite the opposite. If it has seemed that the army's hair styles have mimicked popular fashion, you will probably find that it was fashion mimicking the army.
Cut your hair, shave your chin and smile, soldier. It may sometimes seem that the army has arbitrary rules and regulations that are solely aimed at making our lives difficult but the truth is that there is sound reasoning behind every one. We just sometimes might not know what they are.

Response by SPC Marcus DeMatos made Aug 19 at 2016 1:26 PM

2016-08-19T13:26:04-04:00

I can say this with a little self-deprication... but the rules are written by primarilly balding males. Hence more skin is seen as acceptable. Mike drop...

Response by SGT Mathew Husen made Aug 19 at 2016 1:29 PM

2016-08-19T13:29:10-04:00

When I was CA, went over a month at a time before getting a hair cut

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 19 at 2016 1:32 PM

2016-08-19T13:32:40-04:00

I've worn a high and tight for the last 10 years for one reason: it's easy. In my career field we'll go days or weeks at a time without a shower. Why would I want to deal with a mop of crusty matted hair?

I always snicker a bit when I see the guys who have to go fix their hair every time they take their cover off. It seems a bit silly to me. We're not in the Army to make a fashion statement.

Response by SPC James Anderson made Aug 19 at 2016 2:01 PM

2016-08-19T14:01:27-04:00

Look at the uniform standards. How much pride used to go into a starched uniform a pair of mirror like shined boots and a weekly high and tight. People used to take pride in their appearance and today the uniform requires zero effort to maintain and just looks unprofessional, a set of crumpled ACU's is about as professional as a pair of pajamas.

Response by CSM Richard StCyr made Aug 19 at 2016 2:09 PM

2016-08-19T14:09:55-04:00

Headgear drives a lot of the hair styles. When I came in most wore fuller cuts and of course we had the obligatory walrus moustache. Try wearing an early 80s military hair style with a beret. Gur-an-tee you'll be in a high fade or high and tight soon.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Aug 19 at 2016 5:09 PM

2016-08-19T17:09:09-04:00

Other than the haircut that I got at the reception station I never had real short hair. I wore a flat top from about the 6th grade until I was over 30. Shaved heads and "high and tight" were never seen in my day or at least not anywhere that I was.

Response by CW3 Matt Hutchason made Aug 19 at 2016 7:57 PM

2016-08-19T19:57:04-04:00

The "appearance of a modern professional" is kinda Subjective then, isn't it? One doesn't need to have a high and tight, shaved head, or crew cut to look professional. Yeah, back in the times you mentioned, very short hair was the standard, masculine look. It's not today. Sure, regulations are to be followed religiously, but to say that a guy with a bit of hair is unprofessional? Find me an "operator" that agrees, and those guys are the the pinnacle of professional. Throw in the old adage that "I'd rather have a 240 PFTer with 2 inch hair who knows every intricate detail of the helicopter he maintains than a guy who is on line twice a week for a haircut but only knows 50% of his equipment and scores a 300 on the PFT". Ok, I just made that up, but it's an awesome adage.

Response by MSG Dan Castaneda made Aug 19 at 2016 8:24 PM

2016-08-19T20:24:58-04:00

I absolutely dispice high and tight haircuts. Mustaches too.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 19 at 2016 10:01 PM

2016-08-19T22:01:30-04:00

go to the 82nd if you want to see some extreme haircuts, the 1944 comb over is the standard.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Aug 19 at 2016 10:59 PM

2016-08-19T22:59:28-04:00

They shaved my head in Boot Camp, Hell I told them to do it after wearing a Black Ball Cap in Orlando in the Summer for a week and it never really did grow back. Started getting used to my Wreath a long time ago and now it is a right proper salt and pepper one of a Grandpa.

Response by PO1 Jerome Newland made Apr 3 at 2020 9:26 AM

2020-04-03T09:26:17-04:00

It was hygienic. It allowed proper gas mask fit. It required less time to process hundreds of recruits. You can call the reasons weird but understandable. It isn't possible to blend in, helping to catch those AWOL people. Before they get too far. It served a purpose, maybe it still does, maybe equipment and hygiene have improved from back in the day. Hope so.