Is it time for gendered hair standards to go?

[Journeyman]

The Prime Minister of Canada does not have a haircut that would pass a military inspection.

Well, there's an argument-clinching point.  :facepalm:

 

[q_1966]

During a Crisis who are you going to look for to save you, the long haired guy with a gun or the short haired professional who looks like hes there to help?
Its not wether you can do the job Its weather you look like you can do the job it the public eye. My  :2c:

If a pony tail for men is allowed, I want a tricorn hat and sword to go with it.

 

[57Chevy]

Its not whether you can do the job Its whether you look like you can do the job

Bvvvt

Actually it's knowing that you can do the job and are of such a high standard that others can easily notice your professionalism

 

[my72jeep]

Bvvvt

Actually it's knowing that you can do the job and are of such a high standard that others can easily notice your professionalism

Sorry In the public Eye Its wether you look like you can do the job.

 

[the 48th regulator]

I agree with the OP,

In fact, females should also be subjected to same standards for moustaches!  Why should they be forced to wax, or bleach them!  I say let them grow 'em staches out!

dileas

tess

 

[zander1976]

Sorry In the public Eye Its wether you look like you can do the job.

To an outsider, looking like you know what you are doing is often related to how you look and how confident you are.

I thought the idea of have consistent hair cuts was to remove the individuality and make them one coherent team of canadian solders.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Uniformity??  What a concept... Groovy man.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

During a Crisis who are you going to look for to save you, the long haired guy with a gun or the short haired professional who looks like hes there to help?
Its not wether you can do the job Its weather you look like you can do the job it the public eye. My  :2c:

Really?

 

[dapaterson]

Standards for facial hair are equally unsupportable.  You can wear a beard if you're wearing a naval DEU and not going to sea, or are an infantryman who is part of a non-existent pioneer platoon, or if you have a medical chit...

Again, how about a single standard - and I'm not suggesting this one:

 

[my72jeep]

As A member of the public not knowing who that bearded giant is would be scared shitless to see him walk in to a room dressed as he is. but saying that, his look Would have a" WHO THE FUC$ WAS THAT  and WHY IS HE KILLING US?" reaction with the bad guys

 

[Fishbone Jones]

.

 

[q_1966]

Again, how about a single standard - and I'm not suggesting this one:

If you were suggesting it, I'd agree with you

 

[Sigs Pig]

During a Crisis who are you going to look for to save you, the long haired guy with a gun or the short haired professional who looks like hes there to help?
Its not wether you can do the job Its weather you look like you can do the job it the public eye. My  :2c:

Same said of people who post w/grammatical and spelling errors, their words can't hold much water.

ME

 

[Journeyman]

...errors; their...

    op:

 

[Sigs Pig]

Been got!  HA!

Thx,
ME

 

[cupper]

This is a very good point. Long hair (subject to a unisex standard) would not impact my ability to be a soldier, so what difference does it make if I am a male or female. It is quite clearly constitutionally invalid.

The Prime Minister of Canada does not have a haircut that would pass a military inspection.

And it definitely isn't just limited to braids or buns. Check out the allowable short hairstyles as well - so long as it doesn't go past the lower edge of the collar it would be allowable.

I suggest that you go back and read Part 1 and the section on discriminatory practices. The key point to keep in mind is that the practice must discriminate adversely, in other words create a situation where you suffer some form of hardship due to the difference in treatment between men and women (or what ever other basis you may challenge a regulation).

Something to consider. The regulations have been successfully challenged under the basis of religious discrimination, where the member's religion prohibited cutting of hair or beard. In this case the member suffered a hardship in that his adherence to his religious tenants was in conflict with the regulation. In your case, what hardship are you suffering?

Another thing to consider, in the many years that the Human Rights Act has been in existence, it appears that either no one has challenged the dress regulations successfully on these grounds. Ask yourself why that would be? Only two possible answers to this question, 1) No one has actually challenged the regulations on this basis, or 2) the Commission has ruled that the regulations do not discriminate on the basis of sex. I would suggest that you strongly consider doing some research before taking any action beyond floating this trial balloon here.

 

[hunter22]

I suggest that you go back and read Part 1 and the section on discriminatory practices. The key point to keep in mind is that the practice must discriminate adversely, in other words create a situation where you suffer some form of hardship due to the difference in treatment between men and women (or what ever other basis you may challenge a regulation).

Something to consider. The regulations have been successfully challenged under the basis of religious discrimination, where the member's religion prohibited cutting of hair or beard. In this case the member suffered a hardship in that his adherence to his religious tenants was in conflict with the regulation. In your case, what hardship are you suffering?

Another thing to consider, in the many years that the Human Rights Act has been in existence, it appears that either no one has challenged the dress regulations successfully on these grounds. Ask yourself why that would be? Only two possible answers to this question, 1) No one has actually challenged the regulations on this basis, or 2) the Commission has ruled that the regulations do not discriminate on the basis of sex. I would suggest that you strongly consider doing some research before taking any action beyond floating this trial balloon here.

Thank you for the response.

The hardship I am suffering is a clearly discriminatory standard between men and women for hair standards. There is no legally defensible reason this difference exists. No one has offered any reason that would stand up in a court. I would also point out that religious arguments for not cutting hair actually strengthen my argument - not weaken it. The prohibited grounds for discrimination are equal - that is to say, a religious argument guaranteeing immunity from hair standards would be as strong as a sex-based argument guaranteeing immunity from hair standards.

I thank you for your point regarding research. I have done some research and spoken to a lawyer friend, but we have not found any challenges on hair standards from a sex discrimination standpoint in recent history.

I am not surprised by the amount of illogical bias and discriminatory attitudes that exist. Why is 'feminine' hair less professional? Less military? Less able to do the job of a soldier (ie. point regarding "who would you want to save you? / I only bought beers for the masculine ones!")

 

[Jungle]

The hardship I am suffering is a clearly discriminatory standard

Wow... I agree it may be time for the CF to take a new look at grooming standards and maybe modernize them, but "hardship" ?? "suffering" ??  :

Really ??  :facepalm:

 

[hunter22]

Wow... I agree it may be time for the CF to take a new look at grooming standards and maybe modernize them, but "hardship" ??  :

Really ??  :facepalm:

It might be how we are defining 'hardship.' I don't think we should get too hung up on words, but understand that I see the difference as significant, and upholding values that aren't morally or legally right anymore.

 

[my72jeep]

I only bought beers for the masculine ones!")



I bought beer for the ones that looked like sailors not like the riff raff  wharf trash that was there watching a Soccer game.I was buying the beer as a thanks for the tour of the boat and the free supper.