I mentioned it on my timeline, I think that is what it is called, on Facebook. There was a news article stating the Navy was going to allow the women to wear their hair down, in a ponytail or braids. I did say " girls " originally but was immediately corrected that " girls " don't join the military, they are women! Yeah, well they are females no matter which way you say it and that was the point, but whatever. Guess we need to change the Navy song Anchors Aweigh , the next lines say, Anchors Aweigh my boys, Anchors Aweigh. Well just how misogynistic is that! Guess it'll have to be changed to Anchors Aweigh, whatever gender you identify as, Anchors Aweigh. Funny, it just doesn't have the same ring to it. When I attended boot camp at Great Lakes, Ill in 1971 we were required to sing that song every time we went through a tunnel under the highway. Wonder if they still do that? Well, whatever the case may be I listened to that news report and thought, does that mean the guys can wear braids and ponytails too? If not, how long before that ruling is contested? Remember we can't be identified as boys and girls, or women and men without our permission. We could be " trans " which is short for transitioning from one to other. I don't think there is a limit to how many times you can do that either, it all depends upon your feelings that day. I can picture some guy claiming he is transitioning and not being allowed to wear his hair down, or indeed grow it long, it is causing emotional stress and he is feeling marginalized! We can't allow that to happen! Each of us deserve the headline, not a mention in the margin.
I really don't care what the Navy decides to do in that regard. In fact the original purpose of that " flap " on the back of the traditional Navy uniform was to protect the uniform from grease worn in the hair. Remember, in the pictures of the old time sailors with their ponytails, that's why it was there. Just change the flap when it got dirty. I do feel it has to be a uniform thing, that is why we call them the uniform services. So, that means to me all the other branches will have to follow suit. I was always told long hair wasn't allowed due to hygiene and safety concerns. The hygiene issue I would argue is a thing of the past, long past in fact. As to the safety risk, I'm not so sure, but it is better to be safe that sorry. Is the goal a unisex armed force? I've noticed that the girls, er women, er females, er unspecified gender specific personnel, have a skirt included in their uniform choices. They can wear the traditional Navy Uniform, the crackerjack or a skirt. I wonder can the boys, er men, er males, er unspecified gender specific personnel can also choose to wear the skirt? Hmm, if not wouldn't that then be misandrist? Now you don't hear that word much do you? Misandrist, it means hatred of men. And if I am a man in the Navy and you don't allow me to wear a skirt that is obviously what you are, a misandrist! Misandry will not be tolerated, we have a zero tolerance policy about that, don't we? If not, better institute one right away.
The bottom line is things change over time. I get that and whether the armed forces allow long hair, and what style they allow it to be worn in is really of little concern to me. It is no more than a passing interest. The only issue I would have in any of this regards discipline. In order to have an effective fighting force you require personnel to follow orders. There is no time to debate whether an order is " fair " or not. Regulations are established to provide that uniformity. I question where this change in policy originated and why. I saw the uniform change several times while I was on active duty. The changes were always because someone stood to profit. Last I knew we were back to the traditional crackerjack uniform because it is what everyone wants. I concur with that, if I wanted to wear an Army uniform I would have joined the Army. I have noticed the Navy has taken to wearing blue camo. I don't know about anyone else but if I go overboard I don't want to be camouflaged. But, I'm certain the Navy has a reason for that, probably cheaper. But like I said, everything changes over time. But, back in my day! LOL Old sailors never die, we are just over the horizon. Anchors Aweigh my? Oh my!!
I really don't care what the Navy decides to do in that regard. In fact the original purpose of that " flap " on the back of the traditional Navy uniform was to protect the uniform from grease worn in the hair. Remember, in the pictures of the old time sailors with their ponytails, that's why it was there. Just change the flap when it got dirty. I do feel it has to be a uniform thing, that is why we call them the uniform services. So, that means to me all the other branches will have to follow suit. I was always told long hair wasn't allowed due to hygiene and safety concerns. The hygiene issue I would argue is a thing of the past, long past in fact. As to the safety risk, I'm not so sure, but it is better to be safe that sorry. Is the goal a unisex armed force? I've noticed that the girls, er women, er females, er unspecified gender specific personnel, have a skirt included in their uniform choices. They can wear the traditional Navy Uniform, the crackerjack or a skirt. I wonder can the boys, er men, er males, er unspecified gender specific personnel can also choose to wear the skirt? Hmm, if not wouldn't that then be misandrist? Now you don't hear that word much do you? Misandrist, it means hatred of men. And if I am a man in the Navy and you don't allow me to wear a skirt that is obviously what you are, a misandrist! Misandry will not be tolerated, we have a zero tolerance policy about that, don't we? If not, better institute one right away.
The bottom line is things change over time. I get that and whether the armed forces allow long hair, and what style they allow it to be worn in is really of little concern to me. It is no more than a passing interest. The only issue I would have in any of this regards discipline. In order to have an effective fighting force you require personnel to follow orders. There is no time to debate whether an order is " fair " or not. Regulations are established to provide that uniformity. I question where this change in policy originated and why. I saw the uniform change several times while I was on active duty. The changes were always because someone stood to profit. Last I knew we were back to the traditional crackerjack uniform because it is what everyone wants. I concur with that, if I wanted to wear an Army uniform I would have joined the Army. I have noticed the Navy has taken to wearing blue camo. I don't know about anyone else but if I go overboard I don't want to be camouflaged. But, I'm certain the Navy has a reason for that, probably cheaper. But like I said, everything changes over time. But, back in my day! LOL Old sailors never die, we are just over the horizon. Anchors Aweigh my? Oh my!!
No comments:
Post a Comment