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.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:


In all fairness I don't think mainstream humans in general don't throw people off roofs..

Wait... If mainstream humans don't don't throw people off roofs, doesn't that mean that mainstream humans throw people off roofs XD

Curse you double negatives!

Maybe. It is what happens when you don't edit something after having multiple sentences in one's head.

if this college want to play pretend military then it should probably read up on the DoD directive highly encouraging religious accommodation as long as it doesn't interfere with mission accomplishment. It's a college, the mission is to sit in a classroom. I think it might just be fine to allow it. Is it a common thing in the service? No, but there's not exactly a ton of Jews, Sikhs,or female Muslims in the service in the first place.

Here's the directive link by the way.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/130017p.pdf

Paoa02 wrote:
if this college want to play pretend military then it should probably read up on the DoD directive highly encouraging religious accommodation as long as it doesn't interfere with mission accomplishment. It's a college, the mission is to sit in a classroom. I think it might just be fine to allow it. Is it a common thing in the service? No, but there's not exactly a ton of Jews, Sikhs,or female Muslims in the service in the first place.

Here's the directive link by the way.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/130017p.pdf

Of course you'll be sure to note that DoD does not allow Hijabs even when troops are in classroom or garrison settings. Kind of makes your point, well, pointless.

But ACU/Scorpion (is that the name?) Hijabs would probably look ace with the rest of the uniform. I semi kid but my pale european inspired skin would of been overjoyed at the chance to wear a hijab in the desert, religions be damned.

I wonder if clothing and sales could design a hijab that both fits rank and name tap but also has a hook and loop hat brim for walking outside.

Of course at some point people are going to have to realize that the US military is a secular organization that defends a secular government (supposedly) and thus shouldn't be making religious accommodations for any religion to include head wear and jewlery.

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. The person understood the rules and if I read it right, she hasn't even accepted to go there yet, it was simply an attempt to clarify if she could wear it if she attended. The uniform code there is very rigid and I am glad they stuck to their guns.

Note they do not follow ROTC uniform guidelines as they have their own unique uniform they wear.

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. The person understood the rules and if I read it right, she hasn't even accepted to go there yet, it was simply an attempt to clarify if she could wear it if she attended. The uniform code there is very rigid and I am glad they stuck to their guns.

Note they do not follow ROTC uniform guidelines as they have their own unique uniform they wear.

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"

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
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"

Thing is though, what the military is doing in "breaking down the individual" is molding the person into someone who readily accepts the hierarchy and command structure of the military. They want someone who knows when it's ok to question orders, and how, and when you just need to shut up and follow the order.

In most other team settings around the world, these aren't literally split second life or death decisions. The military deals specifically with life and death as par for the course. The military exists to prosecute wars on the State's behalf.


What it is NOT, is that they are not trying to break down and remove a person's entire personality. Liked WoW before joining? cool, keep on liking it on personal time. Liked Metal? Rugby? Cricket? Warhammer? Cool... like all of those things. Be you. just conform to the working conditions and follow appropriate orders in a timely manner. That's all it is. Really.

Than by the argument a hijab is fine(obviously ignoring the uniform/combat gear argument) because it doesnt intefere with someone recieving/carrying out orders.

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.

Ironically, hijab wearing women usually refuse to wear skirts rather than trousers, and would not accept the current mandatory US Army uniform.

But WHY must they all be in the exact same uniform?

 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.

Ironically, hijab wearing women usually refuse to wear skirts rather than trousers, and would not accept the current mandatory US Army uniform.

I applaud their reasoning. I wish the actual military would take note, and get a bit stricter on uniformity.

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

 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.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Than by the argument a hijab is fine(obviously ignoring the uniform/combat gear argument) because it doesnt intefere with someone recieving/carrying out orders.

Same could be said for wearing a pink tutu or face tattoos and piercings. Or many things.

It doesn't work that way. For good reason.

 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.?

I'm also just going to throw out some anecdotal evidence, but from my many years of experience, I've always noticed that the personnel who try to be more individuals, have to stand out in someway, they are the ones that are the most difficult to deal with in getting the mission accomplished.

 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 clearly going the most extreme route possible either direction is the only answer.

Are you sure that isnt confirmation bias? That you think that because your looking for that?
And get rid of anything that interferes with the mission Huh? Just a better idea to make sure the military has no outside ties, no familes, nothing like that.

 CptJake 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 clearly going the most extreme route possible either direction is the only answer.

Duh...

Hotsauce, you have to allow some facets. We aren't mindless automatums. Eventually we have to reintegrate with society. What we do though is not what the rest of society does. You can't even compare a burger flipper at McDonalds to a cook. Cause in the Air Force at least, that cook could next week be the guy whose responsible for dealing with HR that has to transit home.

The requirements of the job require us to be different from the rest of society. Our US society embraces difference. Our military society, we just can't let everyone be their own special snowflake. It's a very fine balancing act. And if you tip the scales to far one direction, it's all going to fall over.

I get that. I obviously dont think the military is mindless. But you have to honestly answer me why you think a hijab would interfere with the ability for one to meld as it would be with the military. Would other people honestly think "She is wearing a Hijab, she isnt one of us really" when crawling in the mud or under fire?

 djones520 wrote:
I'm also just going to throw out some anecdotal evidence, but from my many years of experience, I've always noticed that the personnel who try to be more individuals, have to stand out in someway, they are the ones that are the most difficult to deal with in getting the mission accomplished.

Between the wife and I we have 4 platoon leader jobs (3 mine) 5 company commands (2 mine) and she had a BN and now BDE command and deployed again (where as I am a nasty contractor at this point). That is over 18 years in prime leadership positions. I can say our anecdotal evidence mirrors yours. The guy/gal who goes out of their way to stand out without a good understanding of appropriate behavior/times for certain behaviors tends to be a burden on the chain of command, from his/her team/section/squad/vehicle commander/leader on up.

 CptJake wrote:

Paoa02 wrote:
if this college want to play pretend military then it should probably read up on the DoD directive highly encouraging religious accommodation as long as it doesn't interfere with mission accomplishment. It's a college, the mission is to sit in a classroom. I think it might just be fine to allow it. Is it a common thing in the service? No, but there's not exactly a ton of Jews, Sikhs,or female Muslims in the service in the first place.

Here's the directive link by the way.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/130017p.pdf

Of course you'll be sure to note that DoD does not allow Hijabs even when troops are in classroom or garrison settings. Kind of makes your point, well, pointless.

I can't seem to find that point in the DoD directive that states that, could you note the section for me?

Just a note on FET teams, the hijab fits under a helmet and over body armor, it's not a huge issue really.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I get that. I obviously dont think the military is mindless. But you have to honestly answer me why you think a hijab would interfere with the ability for one to meld as it would be with the military. 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. The amount of changes forced on the military this last decade has not done a lot of good for morale overall. Whether or not it is right for gays to openly serve, or women to fill combat rolls, is not the issue. I'm not even going to go into that. Our military was premier. Desert Storm, we were going into a conflict that we fully expected to be an absolute blood bath. Casualties were projected to be towards World War 2 levels. Instead it was a mud stomping the likes of which the world had never seen. Throughout much of the GWOT, things were the same. Our military proved to be such an elite force, that it was simply amazing. With a fraction of the force that the Russians brought to bear, we were effectively stomping the gak out of insurgent forces in Afghanistan. We again steamrolled Iraq's military, and effectively destroyed the insurgency that sprung up there, something that is supposed to be "impossible" to do.

Then all of a sudden, we're being told that we aren't good enough. We need to change this, and that, and we need to accept this, and that. It's fething morale up left and right. Whether or not it's right, doesn't matter. It is still having those effects. Social engineering in the military hurts the military. We don't exist to make people feel good about themselves. We exist to kill people and break things. You don't do that by being nice. By making people feel like special snow flakes. It's that simple.

And just for the record, I sure as hell bet that a hijab getting caught on some barbed wire while low crawling through mud, and getting everyone behind you stuck, is certainly going to do nothing to help.



EDIT: I want to make a strong caveat to this, I just had PRK done yesterday, and I'm am a bit irritable today, so if my postings seem to be coming off a bit harsh, try not to take it personally.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

That might be true as time passes. But the military and military academies (private or otherwise) are not proper venues for "social experiments".

Care to explain to me then, how it is that the military tends to be the first place for social experiments??? The Civil Rights movement sprang in part because of military service of African-Americans and the abolishment of segregated units. The Army, and then baseball were the first two institutions in the US to fully de-segregate (officially).

The reason why the Truman was able to pull off desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces with minimum fuss, was because blacks served with distinction in World War II. Plus, you had a fair number of blacks serving in the officer corps and several high-profile decorations of black servicemen. In other words, black people proved themselves in large numbers, and most whites in the Service saw and respected them for it. From then on, there was no color but O.D. Green. However, there was still some bigotry and the military didn't fully desegregate until 1954.

As for the Civil Rights Movement, it goes back long before Jackie Robinson and military desegregation. Back to the 1890's, in fact. The desegregation of Major League Baseball and the Armed Forces were just two more major milestones in a whole list of watershed events relating to Civil Rights in the United States.

LordofHats wrote:If anything, the military is the best place for arbitrary social barriers to be knocked down;




The West Wing. The writing ranged in quality, but damn is it quotable.

Which is typical of civilian "entertainment" from Hollyweird that tries to shove their views down the throats of their viewers, and refuses to look at the long view/big picture.Contrary to popular belief, the entertainment industry (like other media organs) isn't on the pulse of American majority attitudes. They're in their own little world. While what that Admiral character said is true to an extent, military desegregation wasn't as disruptive to unit cohesion as the writers of that episode make it out to be (see my point above). And attitudes toward homosexuals in society had changed greatly by the time this episode had aired, which had more to do with homosexuals now serving openly than Hollyweird propaganda like this episode. This is just more half-factual nonsense from self-congratulatory, white liberals in entertainment who want to pat themselves on the back for being so "progressive" and "tolerant", and to hell with gradually changing long held beliefs, good social cohesion and order, and smooth change that benefits all.

Article 88 89 and 91 of UCMJ

Its to avoid this issue.


◦888. ARTICLE 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
◦889. ARTICLE 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER

◦891. ARTICLE 91. INSUBORDINATE CONDUCT TOWARD WARRANT OFFICER, NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICER, OR PETTY OFFICER

 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 in the Armed Forces there is an understanding that there is a time and place for religion. And families have feth-all to do with individuality and taking orders. If anything, learning to operate within a family unit actually can help build character (or it did at one time, before the idea of a "stable family" became a joke).

In response to djones520

There's a lot to unpack here. The answer should be no, and often is. All these changes that old guard hate have been implemented and we are still the best. your analysis of the wars in iraq
And Afghanistan is mind boggling. We killed a ton of insurgents, but we sure as hell didn't destroy insurgency, anywhere Social change isn't fething up morale, not anywhere I've been or seen. Also barb wire will catch on a shemagh and yet somehow never saw any policy to remove them. Everything you said is so frustrating, because I think you believe it. Never seen an issue when it was Jews in yarmulkes.

 Jihadin wrote:
Article 88 89 and 91 of UCMJ

Its to avoid this issue.


◦888. ARTICLE 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
◦889. ARTICLE 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER

◦891. ARTICLE 91. INSUBORDINATE CONDUCT TOWARD WARRANT OFFICER, NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICER, OR PETTY OFFICER

Regs are necessary. But as demonstrated in past conflicts, regulations alone are not always enough. Especially out in the field.

If the request was approved it would have been the only uniform alteration request ever approved in the school’s 175 year history.

My only problem with it would be that if her uniform alteration request had been accepted, we would have had a situation where the formal press release informing us of the uniformity of their uniforms being nonuniform, and now we're denied the formation of those words on a military form.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But WHY must they all be in the exact same uniform?

That is what a uniform is.