Is it time for gendered hair standards to go?

[Michael OLeary]

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.

So, if I dress like a sailor, you'll buy me drinks?  Ever see an Oberon crew hitting the jetty after a six-month trip? Overalls, ankle boots and two months late for a barber. I can dress like that for free drinks.

 

[my72jeep]

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.

Have you told us yet us why you find it a hardship to cut your hair? It may bring 1 or 2 to your side.

 

[Remius]

My 2 cents.

Uniforms serve a variety of purposes.  As well parts of them and how we wear them all at one point served or serve purposes.  Traditions and functionality or functionalities that have become traditions all play a role.  Soldiers have sported beards before and have standards that have changed over the years.  hair cuts and shaving were once used as a hygiene tool to prevent lice and such as well as serve as a system of uniformity.

Let's face it.  In today's society, men and women are different.  i don't care what anybody says about gender equality, we are both physically and psycologically different.  This does not mean that either cannot do each other's jobs just that we are different.  Uniforms are also meant to make someone feel as though they are part of the team but sometimes it can turn some talent away.  That also means altering /modifying said uniforms to accomodate particular groups.  Sikh, women etc etc.

We are a reflection of society. And we follow some of those trends in society.  And so do our uniforms. We have standards for women to include them based on societal norms that we currently have.  Not to discriminate against men.

 

[my72jeep]

So, if I dress like a sailor, you'll buy me drinks?  Ever see an Oberon crew hitting the jetty after a six-month trip? Overalls, ankle boots and two months late for a barber. I can dress like that for free drinks.

Only if you have short hair and squeal lots.

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . . . .

They clearly discriminate on the basis of gender without any real purpose other than maintaining outdated gender expectations regarding hairstyle. I believe that a human rights commission challenge on this point would be immediately successful.

I am quite serious about this question, and hope it will be taken seriously by forum members. Do you think this has merits?

I'm confused (which is common these days, must be due to previous use of aluminum mess tins).  How have you been discriminated against simply because your employer has imposed conservative dress and grooming standards (which is something that is permitted)?  There are ample accomodations in CF dress regulations (often resulting from CHRT decisions) to permit you to look like a male (or androgynous), a female to look like a female (or androgynous), an adherent of a religion that has certain dress/appearance requirements to follow those requirements, etc.

Go ahead, make a complaint.  However, I think it will be an uphill battle.

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/faq/page4-eng.aspx#25

Does the Commission take complaints about dress codes?

At the federal level, dress codes do not violate the Canadian Human Rights Act, unless, for example, a dress code prohibits an employee from wearing an item of clothing or a piece of jewellery required under the tenets of that employee’s religion. The Commission would also deal with the following complaints:

complaints about facial hair and grooming where grooming standards conflict with religious practices or duties (such as the requirement that members of the Sikh religion keep their hair and beard uncut) or where grooming standards cannot be complied with because of a disability; and

complaints from women who are required to wear revealing uniforms (they may file complaints on the basis of sex).

 

[hunter22]

I'm confused (which is common these days, must be due to previous use of aluminum mess tins).  How have you been discriminated against simply because your employer has imposed conservative dress and grooming standards (which is something that is permitted)?  There are ample accomodations in CF dress regulations (often resulting from CHRT decisions) to permit you to look like a male (or androgynous), a female to look like a female (or androgynous), an adherent of a religion that has certain dress/appearance requirements to follow those requirements, etc.

Go ahead, make a complaint.  However, I think it will be an uphill battle.

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/faq/page4-eng.aspx#25

I have read that quote on the CHRC website. This is not really a dress code in the sense that the term is used on the website. This is a regulation for which I could be punished with detention or fines for not following. The CHRC quote above refers to employers requiring certain clothing for employment (ie. the male uniform for flight attendants is trousers but for females it is skirts).

Canadian Forces dress requlations pertaining to hair are quite a different matter.

 

[Journeyman]

I have read that quote on the CHRC website. This is not really a dress code in the sense that the term is used on the website.

Really??  It specifically mentions hair and grooming; it could be believed that "Canadian Forces dress regulations pertaining to hair are quite a different matter" only if one were adamantly determined to see it in another light....which you obviously are.

Therefore, there's really no use in anyone offering opposing views to you.  You go Sisyphus, but I'm betting on the rock.  :

 

[jollyjacktar]

It's a very valid question.  What reasons (not traditions) dictate that men must have short hair and women may have long hair?  Why are women in the military permitted to have pierced ears, but not men?  If a woman's long hair and earrings do not impact operational effectiveness and safety, then a man's long hair and earrings would not impact them either.

Many of the CF's dress and appearance regulations are based on a 1950s "Leave it to Beaver" mentality.  That needs to be tossed.

Personally I keep my hair very very short and have no desire to have longer hair.  That being said, however, I agree 100% with data.

If you were to look at military hair styles of our Victorian ancestors they were a very hairy bunch in keeping with the styles of society of the day, mutton chops, long sideburns, goatees and beards etc.  These hair styles didn't make them any less professional or proficient at their trade craft. It wasn't until the Trenches that hygiene made short hair a necessity if IIRC from my readings.

Hair styles have changed since the 50's and we should become more progressive in our outlook.  What's wrong with at the very least whatever fits under your headdress is yours as long as it's not outrageous?

 

[hunter22]

Really??  It specifically mentions hair and grooming; it could be believed that "Canadian Forces dress regulations pertaining to hair are quite a different matter" only if one were adamantly determined to see it in another light....which you obviously are.

Therefore, there's really no use in anyone offering opposing views to you.  You go Sisyphus, but I'm betting on the rock.  :

That is clearly the legal intent. The CF does not have a 'dress code.' It has dress regulations made pursuant to statutory law (ie. dress regulations have the force of law). I am sorry if that does not fit with your view of the words above, but that is my lawyer's interpretation.

I could be legally subjected to fines or detention for doing something that a woman can do, with no legally defensible reason for the difference.

 

[armyvern]

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.

Read the notes that go with that regulation too (even women leave the notes out sometimes, yet that is often where the technicalities lie) ... especially if you seriously plan on launching a human rights challenge; it would then be prudent to be accurate in your assertions and aware of the full set of rules regarding women's hair.

Females can wear their hair "loose" until it reaches the bottom of their collar.  At that point in time they must submit a memo to their CO requesting permission to keep it "loose" for a maximum 90 day "transition period" (or less time) until it is long enough to put into a braid or bun.  Note:  You do not get the full 90 days automatically; if you can get it into a braid after 30 days, then it must go into the braid at 30 days.

Once that braided hair reaches your armpits when down, it must go up into a bun.

In DEU, it must be up in a bun.  Simply braided and down is not acceptable.



You want to wear yours in a bun or braid, fill 'yer boots, but IAW the regulations such as women already do.  Good luck. 

While you're at it, there is a regulation that says we women can wear black, high-heeled civilian shoes with our DEU (sometimes) and our Mess Kit too;  it'd probably be cost effective for you to challenge both sex-discretional rules simultaneously.  Oh, and let's not forget the skirt with my DEU or Mess Kit.  If you're truly looking for "equal" rules, then you must address those issues too.  Never-the-less, I am quite fine with our native Canadians being allowed to wear their braids down (ie: buns not necessary) while in uniform while I can not, by dress regulation, do same.  It's just not that high on my "I am being wronged" list).

 

[Blackadder1916]

I have read that quote on the CHRC website. This is not really a dress code in the sense that the term is used on the website. This is a regulation for which I could be punished with detention or fines for not following. The CHRC quote above refers to employers requiring certain clothing for employment (ie. the male uniform for flight attendants is trousers but for females it is skirts).

Canadian Forces dress requlations pertaining to hair are quite a different matter.

Horsesh*t!

Your contention that the administrative and disciplinary measures available to the CF makes this more than a "dress code" now makes me wonder if you're just another barrack room barrister who's looking to stir the pot just because you like shit disturbing.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I believe that Canadian Forces hair standards are a clear case of discrimination on the basis of sex within the legally enforceable regulations of the Canadian Forces (an extension of statutory law). Dress regulations are therefore federal government legislation directly subject to the Constitution.

They clearly discriminate on the basis of gender without any real purpose other than maintaining outdated gender expectations regarding hairstyle. I believe that a human rights commission challenge on this point would be immediately successful.

I am quite serious about this question, and hope it will be taken seriously by forum members. Do you think this has merits?

I think you should go for it.

 

[Jungle]

I think you should go for it.

Absolutely... then let us know how it goes !!

 

[hunter22]

Horsesh*t!

Your contention that the administrative and disciplinary measures available to the CF makes this more than a "dress code" now makes me wonder if you're just another barrack room barrister who's looking to stir the pot just because you like crap disturbing.

It absolutely does make it different. Air Canada cannot throw their members in prison for breaking the dress code, the Canadian Forces can.

I would also say, there is a clear difference between hair and allowing men to wear high heels or skirts in their uniforms - that difference being social acceptability. The 'Leave it to Beaver' poster hit the nail on the head - changing social norms have erased the gendered line between socially acceptable hair for men and women. Where a bearded man wearing a skirt and heels for his own comfort would bring discredit on the Canadian Forces, a man with hockey hair would not.

 

[Remius]

It absolutely does make it different. Air Canada cannot throw their members in prison for breaking the dress code, the Canadian Forces can.

You would likely be thrown in jail for failing to follow direction, not violating the dress code.

Air Canada can't order their members into dangerous life threatning situations or throw their employees into jail for being 5 mins late either.  It is different because WE are different.  The NDA has stood up to many challenges and will likely stand up to yours.  But if you feel like giving it a go, go for it. 

 

[hunter22]

No, they both are violations of human rights (regarding the 'which one of these is a violation of human rights post by Technoviking above'.) If you want to have your hair short as a man or woman, that is fine. The problem lies in saying a woman can have her hair long, but as a man, I cannot. That is clear prima facie discrimination. It is essentially an exemplary definition of a discriminatory practice.

I would also say that the CF Ethics program requires that Canadian Forces members obey and support lawful authority. This standard does not obey or support the constitution or the federal Canadian Human Rights Act. I believe it needs to change. I'm sorry if you disagree because it challenges your idea of 'masculine' or you don't think it is important enough.

 

[armyvern]

No, they both are violations of human rights (regarding the 'which one of these is a violation of human rights post above'.) If you want to have your hair short as a man or woman, that is fine. The problem lies in saying a woman can have her hair long, but as a man, I cannot. That is clear prima facie discrimination. It is essentially an exemplary definition of a discriminatory practice.

I would also say that the CF Ethics program requires that Canadian Forces members obey and support lawful authority. This standard does not obey or support the constitution or the federal Canadian Human Rights Act. I believe it needs to change. I'm sorry if you disagree because it challenges your idea of 'masculine' or you don't think it is important enough.

What is your argument to them going to be??

That if it doesn't effect the operational effectiveness for a woman, then it does not for you either and is therefore against your human rights (Seriously!)?  That's a 1st world problem that.

The very same 'argument' sees a violation of many (even CF women's rights) then.  Mine must be in the bun once it reaches my armpits.  Natives not so.  So what?

Mine must be in a bun whenever wearing DEU.  Not so my cadpat.  Operational effectiveness therefore obviously has zero to do with it as cadpat is my operational uniform and I can wear it down and braided in that uniform.

You need to find an argument other than "operational effectiveness" because the above differences I just pointed out negate that as the reasoning for this regulation's existence. 

 

[vonGarvin]

That if it doesn't effect the operational effectiveness for a woman, then it does not for you either and is therefore against your human rights (Seriously!)?  That's a 1st world problem that.

You said it better than I did. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

No, they both are violations of human rights (regarding the 'which one of these is a violation of human rights post by Technoviking above'.) If you want to have your hair short as a man or woman, that is fine. The problem lies in saying a woman can have her hair long, but as a man, I cannot. That is clear prima facie discrimination. It is essentially an exemplary definition of a discriminatory practice.

I would also say that the CF Ethics program requires that Canadian Forces members obey and support lawful authority. This standard does not obey or support the constitution or the federal Canadian Human Rights Act. I believe it needs to change. I'm sorry if you disagree because it challenges your idea of 'masculine' or you don't think it is important enough.

Alright Matlock, you're 100% right and all the rest are wrong.

No one here is going to change your mind.

Please do us all a favour and launch your case first thing Monday morning.

This will accomplish at least two things:

1) Being an active court case, your lawyer will likely prevent you from talking about it. Even here.

2) The sooner it's launched, the sooner there'll be a decision.

In the meantime, for the rest, you can continue discussing, to no avail except frustration, or go out in the yard and hit yourselves in the face with a 2X4. You'll accomplish the same thing in regards to this discussion.

So please, hunter22, tomorrow, launch your case and when it's completed, please come back and post the decision.

 

[TwoTonShackle]

Disagreeing or attacking the OP's position/opinion is one thing but attacking the OP is unethical. 

Male and Female grooming standards are different and it's something most of us have always accepted.  If the OP feels this is a sex based discrimination and wants this to be addressed, so be it.  Best of luck on this endeavour.  I would be curious to see the minutes of the dress committee minutes after the topic was brought up.  If it was denied, hopefully it would be adequately explained and so be it.  If it was adopted into our ever changing culture, again so be it. 

I have to admit I was taken aback the first time I saw an NCM wearing NCD's and their ball cap on public transit.  But I accepted the change and moved on.