How do you feel about the new (redefined) hair guidance in AR 670-1 in regards to hairstyles for women

2014-04-03T09:26:07-04:00

How do you feel about the new (redefined) hair guidance in AR 670-1 in regards to hairstyles for women? Seen a lot of issues brought up about it in the news lately. From my perspective, I do not see a valid reason for non-compliance. Men are restricted on many grooming standards that I personally do not agree on; I volunteered to join, wasn’t forced, therefore, I should be held to the standard that is published. I have seen several females that came into compliance already and not a single disparaging remark was made about.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 9:29 AM

2014-04-03T09:29:20-04:00

I would suggest an ALARACT being published showing pictures of authorized hair styles with various pictures so there is little to no misunderstanding.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 9:35 AM

2014-04-03T09:35:33-04:00

Not a peer reviewed article by any means, but take a minute to read this Army Times article. http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140402/NEWS07/304020055/Army-Female-focus-group-helped-determine-new-hair-rules

The first paragraph is important as it lays down a foundation for where the hairstyles came from.

Army: Female focus group helped determine new hair rules

The Army's new hair rules, which ban a number of styles popular among black women, were approved only after surveying hundreds of senior enlisted female soldiers as part of a focus group led by a fe...

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 11:04 AM

2014-04-03T11:04:40-04:00

Most of these regs were already in place..no one really enforced it..or as men..they are not that familiar with regs for females. If I want a quick response, I refer to my wife as she is also an E-7 and she is very familiar with female regs. I use her as an example...now if I see a female and her hair is not tight like my wife's, or her nails are done or I can see eyeliner...they are WRONG. I dont want hear the race card crap either, ethinic hairstyles were already covered in previous issues of AR 670-1. NO ONE reads regs anymore, thats the issue.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 11:32 AM

2014-04-03T11:32:17-04:00

I'm just glad they finally allowed ponytails in PTs. The ponytail has always seemed to me to be the symbol of the professional female athlete. A tight donut shaped bun never looked like the hairstyle worn by triathletes, which seems to be the general build we're going for with PRT. If hair and grooming standards are designed to replicate that which is seen as "professional" in comparable civilian environments, it would make sense that we replicate the hairstyles worn by the top physical performers in the world when we're conducting PT.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Apr 30 at 2014 1:56 PM

2014-04-30T13:56:32-04:00

Fox News is reporting the Army will now review hair styles after after criticism that changes in the hair requirement are racially biased.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/30/military-to-review-hair-rules-after-complaints/

Army to review hair rules after complaints from black military women

The military is reviewing its new regulations involving soldiers' appearance following criticism that the hair requirement is racially biased.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2014 2:35 PM

2014-04-30T14:35:10-04:00

I agree with it

Response by CWO4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2014 5:22 PM

2014-06-15T17:22:44-04:00

Response by 1SG Chris Brown made Jun 15 at 2014 5:56 PM

2014-06-15T17:56:32-04:00

I'm sure it could use some clarification. Yes, I'd agree that it is technically only allowed while performing PT. However, I think it would be a stretch to say that a female should put her hair up at home so that on the way to PT formation it's up. Then what? After accountability/first formation, the females who are actually doing PT can now take their hair down? I don't think that is the intent at all. However, it's also not the intent for a female to go on sick call in PT uniform and sit at the clinic with her hair down. Nor should I see her after PT at the Shoppette with her hair down. The Army certainly through a curve in there allowing this; I think it will continue to play out over the coming months and next couple years as to what we allow or not.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2014 7:51 PM

2014-06-15T19:51:49-04:00

Here's my thoughts: If the Soldier is going from the car to first formation, with the intent to conduct PT, are we really going to make that Soldier change their hairstyle? Potentially female Soldiers will change their hairstyle three times in an hour and a half. That doesn't make sense. If the Soldier has no intention of conducting PT, then no ponytail.

Basically, No PT = No Ponytail. PT = Ponytail.

This is just my two cents. But then again, I have zero females in my formation....so maybe I'm missing something.

Response by SFC Michael Faircloth made Jun 15 at 2014 7:53 PM

2014-06-15T19:53:42-04:00

I interpret it as during the hours of a units scheduled PT. Going to and coming from PT I think is covered as during. But wearing the APFU as a duty uniform is not. That is how I now enforce it.

Response by SPC Kathy Misleh made Jun 16 at 2014 1:02 PM

2014-06-16T13:02:21-04:00

Well 1SG my opinion about pony tails during prt is that it doesn't make sense to me. I have short hair so it doesn't effect me. But for those who have long hair that goes down to the middle of their back I believe should still be kept in a bun. I also believe that having your hair down slows you down with hair hitting their face while running or might hit other people while running. And yes they should keep their hair in a bun if they have no intention on doing prt. And what about when they do prt that requires them to wear IOTVs. Lot should be kept in a bun for safety reasons 1SG.

Response by 1SG James Wise made Jun 16 at 2014 1:42 PM

2014-06-16T13:42:22-04:00

This question, along with other numerous updates to 670-1 will eventually require a MILPER message or some other official blast to clarify the intent. Maybe there should be a couple 1SGs, SPCs, and SGTs that are detailed to proofread ARs like 670-1 to pick out these type of issues before hand....or at least a group of people good at picking apart regs and finding these holes used for both good and bad.

Hard to believe after all this time spent rewriting the AR that so many issues still remain that will generate more MILPER messages and then everyone will need a NEW revision of the AR to incorporate all the MILPER messages and DA will miss updating some causing this to all happen again...because yes, there were updates that should have been made from MILPER messages the last decade that never made this final draft.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2014 1:57 PM

2014-06-16T13:57:23-04:00

there are very good valid points all around, the New regulations seems to be racially biased but its because thats there is a particular race that wants to do their own thing with hair for the uniform. you dont hear all caucasian females complaining about it because they adhere to the standards but usually the black females are the ones that get all thos extensions and braids and stuff that is not according with standars. you joined the army, you signed and said you would adhere to the standards well stop complaining and do it. the reason they had to " change the regulation is because people kept trying tothrow the race car and call eo complaints, well guess what if you dont want to adhere to it, Get out we dont need you. For the tattos, some of the best leaders i had Officers and NCOs are tatted up, its not the tatoos, is their personality, their leadership. that one is very questionable plus, most of our damn uniforms are long sleeves and pants who cares about the arms and legs, now above your neck, thats unproffesional in my opinion.