16
16
0
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.)
Posted in these groups: 
Grooming Standards
Standards
Grooming Standards Standards
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 29
19
19
0
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?
(19)
(0)
SSG V. Michelle Woods
SPC Zandlo
Why should you judge the personal appearance of a soldier? Because the Army tells you to. AR 670-1, 1-7 Personal Appearance.
It's not a beauty contest and no one is saying it is. It's a matter of looking "neat and well-groomed". Women do not look neat when wearing uniforms that are either baggy and loose or too tight.
(4)
(0)
SSG Lisa Rendina
SSG L-A,
I also preferred the Class-A, now ASU, pants to the skirt. In fact, I wore my skirt one time and one time only! You would not be a "dudette" at all, the "dudettes " are the ones who try everything possible to look nothing like a female and as much like a man as possible...even acting like a man instead of a lady. I have been a "tomboy" my entire life. After all, I joined the military, I enjoy shooting, hiking, cycling, sports, etc. I also like to get dressed up and go to a nice dinner and have my nails done.
The purpose of the ACU-A and the decision to allow either gender to wear it was to provide the best fit possible; which then contributes to a professional appearance. Makeup is allowed by the regulation, and if a female chooses to wear it she can within the limits. I agree with you that females should have the choice and not have either decision forced.
SFC H,
No issues! If the ACU-A fits a male Soldier better than the standard ACU he should wear it and be proud to have a uniform that fits! I tend to call them the female ACUs only because it had its start as a re-design keeping the differences between "typical" men's and women's bodies in mind.
(0)
(0)
SSG V. Michelle Woods
I couldn't have said it better SSG Rendina.
Although I wouldn't want to offend someone or sound inconsiderate, so I'll refrain from using the word "dudette" again. I apologize.
(1)
(0)
SSG William Patton
Excellent discussion SSG Rendina. I have to agree, but the problem goes beyond just the uniform, but this entire focus of political correctness sweeping society. We can no longer speak out on points that show our differences for fear of hurting someones feelings. Even behaviors that are detrimental are not to be discussed, even if those behaviors show a deviant behavior and one detrimental to a particular group and the society as a whole. Achknowledging differences if they become detrimental to overall morale and military effectiveness is harmful to the overall mission of the military and weakens us where it counts the most, on the battlefield.
(3)
(0)
8
8
0
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.
(8)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
On the OPSEC part sir, that's why I try to push the limits with my hair. I don't like everyone and their mother knowing I'm in the Army just by looking at me. It makes me a target.
(0)
(0)
MAJ John Adams
Are shaved heads really allowed now? They weren't when I was active duty. Only nature was allowed to remove ALL of the hair! But I agree with you, MAJ. The Army, and I assume all armed forces, are being indoctrinated into the belief that they're different and special -- better than other people. It bothers me quite a bit that the concept of untermenchen is alive and well and wearing US uniforms. It has never ended well.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
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.
(7)
(0)
6
6
0
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.
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.
(6)
(0)
5
5
0
Aesthetics are much simpler to identify and enforce than work ethic, intelligence, and dedication.
(5)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
LOL.. not really. My grandpa gave me a high and tight when I was 12, and since then, it's all I've ever known..
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Sir, a "high and tight" is not authorized in the Army anyway. It is, however, (at my last check) authorized for the Marine Corps. There is no taper to a high an tight.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Depends on your definition of a high and tight. High and tights in the Army has to have a taper, all cuts do.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Thats why NCOs need to be NCOs and actually make their dudes have clean boots and a clean uniform. The problem isnt the uniform it is lazy team leaders and squad leaders who wont enforce the stnadard
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
MAJ John Adams
I can't agree that women need to shave their heads to be in the service. But then, neither do the men either. It's personal preference, and looks awful on either gender.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google