Posted on Mar 25, 2015
To Shave or Not to Shave? That is the question.
182K
1.89K
315
42
42
0
In modern times, many police and military forces prohibit beards for one important reason that came up during World War I. In order to get a clean seal on a gas mask, you must have a clean face, so soldiers made sure to shave. They may or may not have been worried about the pulling of beards during hand-to-hand combat, as Alexander the Great was.
Excluding limited exemptions for religious accommodation, the United States Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps have policies that prohibit beards on the basis of hygiene, the necessity of a good seal for chemical weapon protective masks, and the official position that uniform personal appearance and grooming contribute to discipline and a sense of camaraderie.
All branches of the U.S. Military currently prohibit beards for a vast majority of recruits, although some mustaches are still allowed, based on policies that were initiated during the period of World War I.
So, the discussion is, Should military branches change the policy on shaving due to a legacy concern of chemical/biological warfare from WWI?
IMO, Proper grooming standards should be considered. If a service member wants to grow facial hair while not in a deployed location where the threat of a chemical/biological attack could occur (this is hardly in any theater of operations anymore due to many regulations implemented internationally to destroy & manage chemical/biological weapons), they should be allowed to, but in consideration of grooming standards (i.e. length of facial hair, must represent professional appearance, etc.)
Photo: U.S. Army Captain Tejdeep Singh Rattan, 2010
Excluding limited exemptions for religious accommodation, the United States Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps have policies that prohibit beards on the basis of hygiene, the necessity of a good seal for chemical weapon protective masks, and the official position that uniform personal appearance and grooming contribute to discipline and a sense of camaraderie.
All branches of the U.S. Military currently prohibit beards for a vast majority of recruits, although some mustaches are still allowed, based on policies that were initiated during the period of World War I.
So, the discussion is, Should military branches change the policy on shaving due to a legacy concern of chemical/biological warfare from WWI?
IMO, Proper grooming standards should be considered. If a service member wants to grow facial hair while not in a deployed location where the threat of a chemical/biological attack could occur (this is hardly in any theater of operations anymore due to many regulations implemented internationally to destroy & manage chemical/biological weapons), they should be allowed to, but in consideration of grooming standards (i.e. length of facial hair, must represent professional appearance, etc.)
Photo: U.S. Army Captain Tejdeep Singh Rattan, 2010
USA
US Marine Corps (USMC)
Shaving
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 136
0
0
0
Unfortunately everyone has made some good points, however if we start changing our standards to help baby these Soldiers, then I believe they should start handing out pacifiers and diapers to everyone at CIF. Those with sensitive skin should know how to take care of it. (Go to walmart they sell item there) The standard is NO BEARDS. Dont like it.. retire, or get out, Walmart needs people like you. At least there you can have a beard.
Focus on Soldiers welfare and training, that is more important than a beard issue.
Focus on Soldiers welfare and training, that is more important than a beard issue.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Being in the military is a voluntary job since the draft ended on January 27, 1973. If you don't like the grooming standards that are already in place, don't enlist; that simple.
But I will say that if the standards are changed, then Duck Dynasty beards should be UA. I love the Robertson's, but really.....
But I will say that if the standards are changed, then Duck Dynasty beards should be UA. I love the Robertson's, but really.....
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
For me it comes down to this: Train as you fight. If fighting in CBRNE conditions is part of our mission (which it is) then we need to train to that standard. Having two standards in anything has yet to work out well.
With that being said, if the current rationale regarding the sealing of pro-masks is demonstrably false then I see no reason not to reexamine the standard.
With that being said, if the current rationale regarding the sealing of pro-masks is demonstrably false then I see no reason not to reexamine the standard.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
If you wish to enlist conform to our rules and traditions. If your beard is that important we don't need you. One standard one fight
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I know many would like to change it to have a beard, but I personally would think this would effect readiness to deploy immediately yes it would be great to have a beard but I would rather be ready when things start hitting the fan so to speak, than to worry if my seal would work or not. "Practice as if it was real"
(0)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
Readiness is a legit reason to make sure you are equipped to fight in a wartime scenario. I agree with that. However, our ability to know, understand the threat is far more capable and utilized more efficiently, to the point where we know when, and where a chem attack would occur. Do we train to it, yes, do we prepare for it yes, to we maintain currency yes, but in between all of those times, if you are stationed state side, why not have a nicely trimmed, gentleman's beard.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
This is fairly arguable, and valid point. The times have changed from the description of professionalism or the look there of. Thank you for sharing this and letting me see this a different way.
(1)
(0)
SMSgt (Join to see)
Our "Front-Line" special forces units allow it.... If they are "ready" to support the special forces arena with no beard issues, then I think the readiness piece is a mute point for the rest of us.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I'm stationed in Korea (again... why do they keep sending me here???) and the need for NBC training and the whole face seal is a legitimate issue here. Family members and babies are issued protective masks because one of the greatest risks are nK's rocket and artillery assets that all have the capability of using bio and chem warheads just as the USSR had when these policies were implemented. Despite this risk do we see a greater focus on CBRN? Nope, because everyone thinks that th eage of needing CBRN defense are over.
For the religious waivers, I personally don't agree with them or the argument that a Sikh (or anyone else with a beard) would have the time to apply Vaseline to his beard and don his mask before they are affected by whatever set off the CBRN alarms.
For the religious waivers, I personally don't agree with them or the argument that a Sikh (or anyone else with a beard) would have the time to apply Vaseline to his beard and don his mask before they are affected by whatever set off the CBRN alarms.
(0)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
The threat is certainly real in that AOR. nK is infamous for having weapons that could be employed in a given event against South Korea. Considering it is still only a 'cease fire' implemented between North and South, that is still considered a wartime area. That's a legit reason to maintain a clean shaven face because, well, you are unfortunately within striking distance of weapons that could contain chemicals or biological elements. It's sad to hear that there isn't a stronger focus on it. I know plenty of my Air Force counterparts who have said that it is an exercise nightmare there where they wear their gear all the time. I don't know if times have changed or not.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I think it's time we start changing some of our archaic rules and get modern. That said - I also don't think we should have religious exemptions for anything. If the rule is in place - everyone follows the rule. If a standard is set, it is set for all. Playing the "my faith requires me" card should be a automatic "tough shit" card. If your faith requires it, then you shouldn't have joined an organization that forbids it. Plenty of other jobs out there for ya.
*MY* religion requires that I eat big, fat, juicy double cheeseburgers loaded with bacon every day. I don't see me getting any exemptions for weight standards.
*MY* religion requires that I eat big, fat, juicy double cheeseburgers loaded with bacon every day. I don't see me getting any exemptions for weight standards.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Every other country thought of issuing petrol jelly to help form a seal around a beard. I think that facial hair should be allowed, as long as it is neat clean and professional. NCO's enforce standards within the military. This should be one that we can handle as well.
Of course if we are deploying to an area with threat of Chem warfare, then it should be addressed in the spins.
And by the way, happy mustache march.
Of course if we are deploying to an area with threat of Chem warfare, then it should be addressed in the spins.
And by the way, happy mustache march.
(0)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
I think NCO's are not charged as much as they used to be these days. We used to have to pay attention to a clean pressed uniform & polished boots. Now it's wash and wear uniforms, and suede boots. No direct focus, because grooming standards are easy. Not too often have I had to correct someone to get their hair cut. But, if they modified the grooming standard, it would give us something to focus on. Good or bad.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Speak for yourself man, I have to help keep all these young LT's within standards. Some of them seem to think that we're in a fighter squadron when we are a gunship one. They love their poofy pompadours.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Allow beards, goatees, FULL moustaches... Nobody looks good wearing a molestache. Keep them trimmed, tight and squared off. No designs or flared sideburns.
And about the religion issue...Service before religion. Pretty sure we all agreed to put our religion AFTER the branch we joined.
And about the religion issue...Service before religion. Pretty sure we all agreed to put our religion AFTER the branch we joined.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
A clean shaven Service Member is a professional looking Service Member. Yes, there should be operational exceptions (Tier 1 Operators on ops for example).
If you do allow for one to be unshaven in non-combat locations, what is to say that the needs of the service will give you time to shave if they suddenly need you in a combat region and gas is a possibility?
If we make exceptions for this reason, what is to say we will not have to make exceptions for something else. It is not like it was a secret that the military requires you to shave. Now your shocked that they want you to shave? Sure, someone who has a religion that requires beards may have something to offer our Country, but there are plenty who have religions that do not require beards that are available to fill that slot as well. Am I narrow minded, maybe, but I do not think we should make the exception unless it is an operational requirement.
If you do allow for one to be unshaven in non-combat locations, what is to say that the needs of the service will give you time to shave if they suddenly need you in a combat region and gas is a possibility?
If we make exceptions for this reason, what is to say we will not have to make exceptions for something else. It is not like it was a secret that the military requires you to shave. Now your shocked that they want you to shave? Sure, someone who has a religion that requires beards may have something to offer our Country, but there are plenty who have religions that do not require beards that are available to fill that slot as well. Am I narrow minded, maybe, but I do not think we should make the exception unless it is an operational requirement.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google