Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I ask again. Why? what is wrong with allowing people individualism within the military?

Because ordering an individual to storm a hill defended by a dozen heavy machine guns is a hell of a lot harder to do. There is a reason they shave our heads, make us wear the same exact clothing, glasses, etc, from day 1 of our service. To help remove some of that individualism.

So than by that logic you should remove all forms of individualism. Like all forms. Get rid of their religion, make sure they dont have families. Remove anything that might prevent them from taking that order.
Other militaries have proven this can work, why cant the U.S.?

Because then nobody would join up. It sucks enough giving up your freedom for years at a time.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Other militaries have proven this can work, why cant the U.S.?

No, they haven't.

 Monkey Tamer wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I ask again. Why? what is wrong with allowing people individualism within the military?

Because ordering an individual to storm a hill defended by a dozen heavy machine guns is a hell of a lot harder to do. There is a reason they shave our heads, make us wear the same exact clothing, glasses, etc, from day 1 of our service. To help remove some of that individualism.

So than by that logic you should remove all forms of individualism. Like all forms. Get rid of their religion, make sure they dont have families. Remove anything that might prevent them from taking that order.
Other militaries have proven this can work, why cant the U.S.?

Because then nobody would join up. It sucks enough giving up your freedom for years at a time.

There is no individuals in the US Military. One Team One Fight

Which is why that whole 'Army Of One' campaign was so short lived.

Col. Dash wrote:
I have no issue with this. The entire purpose of freshmen year is to break down individuals and make them look and act like a coherent group/team similar to a prolonged harsh basic training with extra college courses. Last I checked they weren't even allowed to wear civilian clothes the first semester or two except on leave. You cant do that and have one person being unique.

So... The one black guy in the class would have to paint his face? The lone redhead would need to dye his hair?

That one 'unique' person is only unique by virtue of being the first. At some point, the first female student was similarly unique.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That isn't the argument The Citadel have used. Their argument to paraphrase it is that they have always given all cadets of any origin at all the exact same uniform, and they believe this is an important part of their education process. (Note that women wear the same uniform as men at The Citadel.) To create one exception opens the door to others, and they wish to continue with the same uniform. However they stressed this is not done on grounds of religion or practicality.

Which is fine, insofar as it goes... It would seem unlikely though that the needs of Muslim students were in any way considered when the uniform was designed.

Times change. 'But we've always done this' is only a valid reason for so long.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

You want the honest answer? Yes. The amount of changes forced on the military this last decade has not done a lot of good for morale overall. .

Hang on a second... Wasn't the whole point of stamping out individuality to make soldiers accept orders without a second thought?

insaniak wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

You want the honest answer? Yes. The amount of changes forced on the military this last decade has not done a lot of good for morale overall. .

Hang on a second... Wasn't the whole point of stamping out individuality to make soldiers accept orders without a second thought?

110% wrong

A quick note on the social policy dropping morale thing. It would be weird for 60% of troops to support homosexuals in the military and 58% to support opening combat positions to women if after that had been done their morale tanked.
Just saying.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2015/06/29-iraq-afghanistan-us-military-morale-crisis

 djones520 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Would other people honestly think "She is wearing a Hijab, she isnt one of us really" when crawling in the mud or under fire?

You want the honest answer? Yes.

I'm speechless, and I think that is probably for the best.

 Jihadin wrote:

insaniak wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

You want the honest answer? Yes. The amount of changes forced on the military this last decade has not done a lot of good for morale overall. .

Hang on a second... Wasn't the whole point of stamping out individuality to make soldiers accept orders without a second thought?

110% wrong

That was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek response based on some of what was said on the previous page.


The thing is, one of the hallmarks of a functional military is the ability to adapt to a changing situation. So even disregarding the 'morale' issues that are apparently stemming from being told to accept something that they don't like, if your soldiers are so incredibly resistant to change, that would seem to be a fairly significant issue all by itself.


The fact that the military are trained to go out and do nasty things doesn't give them a free pass to hang onto the prejudices and preconceptions that the rest of society has deemed out-dated and in need of change.

Paoa02 wrote:
A quick note on the social policy dropping morale thing. It would be weird for 60% of troops to support homosexuals in the military and 58% to support opening combat positions to women if after that had been done their morale tanked.
Just saying.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2015/06/29-iraq-afghanistan-us-military-morale-crisis

 djones520 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Would other people honestly think "She is wearing a Hijab, she isnt one of us really" when crawling in the mud or under fire?

You want the honest answer? Yes.

I'm speechless, and I think that is probably for the best.

How much do you know about military mindset. Where favoritism and individualism is seriously frown upon. Mind you this concerns Citadel and not the US military. She enters US Military service this is pretty much what's going to happen

1. Hijab comes down to verify identity to CAC card on entering post
2. Hijab has to come off during NBC training
3. Hijab has to come off for Drown Proofing training
4. Hijab has to come off for additional security cards in secure area
5. Security Cards follows rule 1
6. Hijab has to come off is she re-enlist anyone being its digital now

(Citadel gradurates are Officers)

7. She deploys into "certain" areas she will have to pull the Hijab off for positive identifications. (Remember the Insurgents can access uniforms online)

 Jihadin wrote:

Paoa02 wrote:
A quick note on the social policy dropping morale thing. It would be weird for 60% of troops to support homosexuals in the military and 58% to support opening combat positions to women if after that had been done their morale tanked.
Just saying.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2015/06/29-iraq-afghanistan-us-military-morale-crisis

 djones520 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Would other people honestly think "She is wearing a Hijab, she isnt one of us really" when crawling in the mud or under fire?

You want the honest answer? Yes.

I'm speechless, and I think that is probably for the best.

How much do you know about military mindset. Where favoritism and individualism is seriously frown upon. Mind you this concerns Citadel and not the US military. She enters US Military service this is pretty much what's going to happen

1. Hijab comes down to verify identity to CAC card on entering post
2. Hijab has to come off during NBC training
3. Hijab has to come off for Drown Proofing training
4. Hijab has to come off for additional security cards in secure area
5. Security Cards follows rule 1
6. Hijab has to come off is she re-enlist anyone being its digital now

(Citadel gradurates are Officers)

7. She deploys into "certain" areas she will have to pull the Hijab off for positive identifications. (Remember the Insurgents can access uniforms online)

You know the Hijab doesn't cover the face, right? It's not a veil like the Niqab.

You know we have to have positive identification right? Visual. EECC and all that jazz.

 Jihadin wrote:
You know we have to have positive identification right? Visual. EECC and all that jazz.

Kind of a moot point as it stands now. If she gets through the Citadel and gets commissioned, she won't be wearing a hijab on active duty while in uniform. PT uniform goes on in the morning and hajib comes off. She'll be able to put it back on when she gets back to her quarters and changes into civilian clothes.

the context for my post was military, feeling exclusionary when the gak hits the fan cause your fellow soldier wears a different hat seems outrageous. In citadel who cares, approve it, I doubt that it will send the whole place into a spiral of disorder where next thing you know cadets are coming to class in parachute pants and halter tops. I'm about allowing it when it is feasible to do so in the military, just as the directive states. Is it going to be allowed at all times and places? Probably not, but we have FET teams managing to get stuff done and guys in turbans whose faces are exposed but not their hair and we manage to get those guys through the gate every morning. I guess that what I'm trying to say is that in my experience most people don't care and in many situations it won't detract from military operations. I'm not a first sergeant or a full bird, I've done 7 years and have a little more time ahead of me and in my view removing individuality makes taking orders easier, that's not what creates unit cohesion. In my opinion it's the shared struggles that a unit faces together that bonds soldiers to each other and gets them to go the extra mile for the man on their left and right.

Paoa02 wrote:
the context for my post was military, feeling exclusionary when the gak hits the fan cause your fellow soldier wears a different hat seems outrageous. In citadel who cares, approve it, I doubt that it will send the whole place into a spiral of disorder where next thing you know cadets are coming to class in parachute pants and halter tops. I'm about allowing it when it is feasible to do so in the military, just as the directive states. Is it going to be allowed at all times and places? Probably not, but we have FET teams managing to get stuff done and guys in turbans whose faces are exposed but not their hair and we manage to get those guys through the gate every morning. I guess that what I'm trying to say is that in my experience most people don't care and in many situations it won't detract from military operations. I'm not a first sergeant or a full bird, I've done 7 years and have a little more time ahead of me and in my view removing individuality makes taking orders easier, that's not what creates unit cohesion. In my opinion it's the shared struggles that a unit faces together that bonds soldiers to each other and gets them to go the extra mile for the man on their left and right.

Except point 2 in your directive is:

(2) Do not replace or interfere with the proper wear of any authorized article of the uniform.

The Hajib will replace and/or interfere with her head gear. Not too hard to see.

Additionally you can't substantially burden the person's exercise of faith, defined as "In general, significantly interfering with the exercise of religion as opposed to minimally interfering with the exercise of religion." Not allowing the hijab does not substantially burden her ability to exercise her faith.

 CptJake wrote:

Except point 2 in your directive is:

(2) Do not replace or interfere with the proper wear of any authorized article of the uniform.

The Hajib will replace and/or interfere with her head gear. Not too hard to see.

The picture posted earlier in the thread would seem to suggest that this is not necessarily the case.

 Jihadin wrote:
You know we have to have positive identification right? Visual. EECC and all that jazz.

I'm well aware. But they don't make everyone who comes onto a government facility wearing a Hijab take it off before gaining entry. If you can't get positive ID with someone wearing a Hijab, I doubt that person would be able to get positive ID at all. That's like saying you can't get positive ID of someone wearing a cover or a Kevlar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

(2) Do not replace or interfere with the proper wear of any authorized article of the uniform.

The Hajib will replace and/or interfere with her head gear. Not too hard to see.

Your point about the PT gear is a good one, and certainly legitimate. That said, the argument that a Hijab would interfere with any authorized headgear is pretty blatantly spurious. Quite frankly, a tactical Hijab would interfere with headgear less than some authorized female hairstyles.

 insaniak wrote:
The picture posted earlier in the thread would seem to suggest that this is not necessarily the case.

Indeed.... and during my time in, I saw plenty of hair styles on female soldiers that interfered more with the wear of a beret or PC, much less a kevlar, than the Hijabs shown earlier ITT.

Honestly, if the regular army had THAT problem fixed, then there may be something to be said for reviewing whether a hijab can fall under the same constraints as a yarmulke in uniform.

I kind of tipped my hat to this thread but this one really stuck out to me and made me laugh

See that why there is why the military can sometimes seem scary "Breakdown the individual" is something disturbing. as if you can have a group of individuals who work together properly.
Ever heard of the saying "Differences make us stronger"

Differences sometimes make you stronger....other times they completely ruin a unit and its ability to fight. I can only assume whomever said this has never served a day in the military, if they had they would never have said this

 Hordini wrote:
tactical Hijab

Is that a hijab with a pistol grip and folding stock?

 Ahtman wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
tactical Hijab

Is that a hijab with a pistol grip and folding stock?

Yep... not to be confused with an assault hijab

 d-usa wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And ROTC regulations state that schools can require any uniform they want, as long as they don't violate any laws.

Second time this has been pointed out now.

SMC rules are different from ROTC rules.

The laws I could find refer back to ROTC for uniform instructions. Are there any other laws clarifying uniform rules for them?

Do you have a source for that?

 cuda1179 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And ROTC regulations state that schools can require any uniform they want, as long as they don't violate any laws.

Second time this has been pointed out now.

SMC rules are different from ROTC rules.

The laws I could find refer back to ROTC for uniform instructions. Are there any other laws clarifying uniform rules for them?

Do you have a source for that?

Of course:

http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r145_1.pdf

4–3. Authorized uniforms
The following uniforms are authorized for wear by ROTC cadets:
a. Cadet-type uniform. Schools that are authorized commutation in lieu of issue-in-kind uniforms may adopt a
uniform of any type or color they desire, provided there is no conflict with any provisions of law or regulation.
b. Issue-type uniform. The issue-type uniform is identical to that issued to enlisted Soldiers or is so similar in design
and fabric that one cannot be distinguished from the other. CTA 50–900 provides the basis for issue and AR 700–84
prescribes the procedures for requisitioning these uniforms.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
The picture posted earlier in the thread would seem to suggest that this is not necessarily the case.

Indeed.... and during my time in, I saw plenty of hair styles on female soldiers that interfered more with the wear of a beret or PC, much less a kevlar, than the Hijabs shown earlier ITT.

Honestly, if the regular army had THAT problem fixed, then there may be something to be said for reviewing whether a hijab can fall under the same constraints as a yarmulke in uniform.

You saw the result of poor leadership, and that has zero bearing on this issue. If leaders allowed hairstyles that interfered with proper uniform wear, those leaders were wrong. There is no disputing that. I had a couple troopers in one of my commands that tried that crap. It ended very quickly.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

(2) Do not replace or interfere with the proper wear of any authorized article of the uniform.

The Hajib will replace and/or interfere with her head gear. Not too hard to see.

Your point about the PT gear is a good one, and certainly legitimate. That said, the argument that a Hijab would interfere with any authorized headgear is pretty blatantly spurious. Quite frankly, a tactical Hijab would interfere with headgear less than some authorized female hairstyles.

No, authorized hairstyles do not interfere with headgear. Poor leaders allow unauthorized hairstyles. And a hajib would interfere with the proper wear of soft caps, berets, pretty much all head gear, unlike a yarmulke that is completely covered and invisible once headgear is on. That is not spurious, it is fact.

 CptJake wrote:
Poor leaders allow unauthorized hairstyles.

That isn't true if the hairstyle is fabulous; if it is an awesome hairstyle then it is excellent leadership.

 Ahtman wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Poor leaders allow unauthorized hairstyles.

That isn't true if the hairstyle is fabulous; if it is an awesome hairstyle then it is excellent leadership.

That is actually pretty close to the excuse one of my platoon sergeants had for allowing one of his female troopers to be out of reg when I took command in Panama. My 1SG, who took over as 1SG a week before I took command had a friendly chat with him. He saw the error of his ways relatively quickly.

When Skynet launches its war against humanity, and armies of T-800s are marching past my house, I won't care if the resistance is wearing the correct headgear or not, only that they can do their job and send those tin cans back to the scrapheap!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
When Skynet launches its war against humanity, and armies of T-800s are marching past my house, I won't care if the resistance is wearing the correct headgear or not, only that they can do their job and send those tin cans back to the scrapheap!

That only works for 'resistance' and 'rebellion' types, where the army consists of a motley crew who have banded together to fight the evil powers that be.
When you are part of the military that IS the powers that be, good or bad you must be as regimented as T-800s or Stormtroopers. Crisp, regimented uniforms indicate the stability of the kingdom/state.
You get to look different if you are an elite unit or leader.
This is military aesthetics 101, I can't believe I have to outline this on a wargaming forum.

I can't believe I have to outline this on a wargaming forum.

Dakka is no ordinary wargaming forum

Anyway, back OT.

I had two females that decided to do their hair in corn rows in my unit. One was told it was an eccentric hairstyle and she had to undo it. That was the blonde female. The other one never had anything said to her.

 CptJake wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

(2) Do not replace or interfere with the proper wear of any authorized article of the uniform.

The Hajib will replace and/or interfere with her head gear. Not too hard to see.

Your point about the PT gear is a good one, and certainly legitimate. That said, the argument that a Hijab would interfere with any authorized headgear is pretty blatantly spurious. Quite frankly, a tactical Hijab would interfere with headgear less than some authorized female hairstyles.

No, authorized hairstyles do not interfere with headgear. Poor leaders allow unauthorized hairstyles. And a hajib would interfere with the proper wear of soft caps, berets, pretty much all head gear, unlike a yarmulke that is completely covered and invisible once headgear is on. That is not spurious, it is fact.

It doesn't seem to interfere with the proper wear of headgear here: or here: or here: or here:

For a closer view of a tactical hijab (without pistol grip, folding stock, or shoulder thing that goes up ) this kind of thing is what I'm referring to:

As you can see, it is basically like a neck gaiter or balaclava, except the top is is attached with velcro, making it even easier to quickly remove than a neck gaiter or balaclava, both of which are authorized gear items.