I am a fan of a Facebook page called "U.S Army W.T.F! moments", a page that captures humorous moments or experiences of Army personnel through photos or personal stories. I was not surprised to see that 670-1 was being talked about on the page. But I was shocked and rather disgusted by the manner in which they posted it:
I will be the first to tell you that the woman's hairstyle is dead wrong (faddish and against regulation.)And her caption from her Instagram may even be taunting, but there is some truth behind what she is trying to say.
If you take a closer look at the comments from the admin of the page, you'll see the level of ignorance that exist among some of our military leaders and subordinates. How is "nappy shit hair" not a racist comment?
I mean it's a hairstyle that immediately draws positive and negative attention to begin with--I wouldn't even try wearing that in uniform...let alone anywhere. But I'm sure it looks cute on her in civilian clothes. I understand both sides but the way that the page addressed it really lacked professionalism and respect.
So the news and actions surrounding this newly implemented policy are getting out of control. The last I heard, the White House petition that was going around across hundreds, maybe even thousands of internet forums to get the decision repealed failed to get a response from the Obama Administration. But the significance of its message still made it to the eyes and hands of individuals with somewhat of a high political influence.
After women of the Congressional Black Caucus wrote to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel urging him to reconsider the new policies, he formally announced on April 29th that the Pentagon would officially review each military branch's policies on women's hairstyles with specifically these measures:
- Within the next 30 days, each Service will review the definitions of authorized and prohibited hairstyles contained in each of their respective policies and revise any offensive language.
- During the next three months, each Service will review their hairstyle policies as they pertain to African American women to ensure standards are fair and respectful of our diverse force, while also meeting our military services' requirements.
Here is a link to an article from the Huffington Post that might provide you with a better idea of how that's moving forward: 670-1 Huffington Post Article
I also thought that this comment from a Facebook user was pretty interesting. "Finger waves" is the name of the style the woman is wearing in the Instagram picture above by the way:
I think it just really demonstrates how much of a double standard there is with this new policy.
For those who aren't familiar with 670-1, this policy is also affecting soldiers with tattoos below there elbows and knees. Those that have them in those places I believe either have to pay to get them removed or are themselves removed from their job in the military. I think this photo is a little extreme to get their point across, but I understand what they're saying. A soldier with a tattoo doesn't change the sacrifices that they made or the caliber of character that they are.
In my opinion, I don't think this new standard should affect those already with tattoos, but more so those who are trying to enter the military from this point out--a grandfather system if you will.
But my main point of that is, there are other people who are upset by this policy. It's affecting many people and others should be courteous of everyone's situation--even if it doesn't affect you specifically. LISTEN to their side and then form your opinion which you are definitely entitled to. Just at least be respectful and classy about it.
For those who aren't familiar with 670-1, this policy is also affecting soldiers with tattoos below there elbows and knees. Those that have them in those places I believe either have to pay to get them removed or are themselves removed from their job in the military. I think this photo is a little extreme to get their point across, but I understand what they're saying. A soldier with a tattoo doesn't change the sacrifices that they made or the caliber of character that they are.
In my opinion, I don't think this new standard should affect those already with tattoos, but more so those who are trying to enter the military from this point out--a grandfather system if you will.
But my main point of that is, there are other people who are upset by this policy. It's affecting many people and others should be courteous of everyone's situation--even if it doesn't affect you specifically. LISTEN to their side and then form your opinion which you are definitely entitled to. Just at least be respectful and classy about it.
Can I get anyone's thoughts? I hope I'm not sounding like I'm overreacting but some of the things I read early this morning are really shocking to me.
Check out this interesting cartoon I also found from an article:
Check out this interesting cartoon I also found from an article:
1 week until commissioning!
~ Melissa
Melissa, i looked up to you as a freshman in JROTC and i am proud to still be able to look up to you now. You are an amazing role model and a very respectable woman. I wish you all the happiness in the world with your new orders. Stay strong and lead the way for future generations!
ReplyDelete-Sierra B.
This is a very informative article that you wrote. I myself was in the military 20 years ago & it was stipulations then but these new rules that there implementing has gone to far. It gives AfricanAmerican women very few options. I hope the government & the military can come to a mutual agreement on this matter.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what else to say except the behavior from the people on that military page was ridiculous. Just because "nappy" doesn't have to be used to describe African American hair only doesn't mean it is not used as a derogatory term and should be avoided. The double standard is glaring between the hair regulation and the tattoo one. I understand that tattoos are not as easily changeable as a hairstyle but that doesn't mean they do not both deserve the same attention and consideration from the military and its personnel.
ReplyDeleteSometimes I wonder if some of these "regulations" are a thinly disguised attempt to encourage "self-deportation". I consider this sort of thing to be a hostile environment where they make it so challenging or so uncomfortable that you just quit and leave. Where the powers-that-be inflict "standards" on those who would upset the original configuration of the "team". The hair standards are easy for white males. Or even white females who can easily do the buzzcut and don't care about their appearance "off-duty".
ReplyDeleteThis "regulation" feels like not only ethnic bias, but gender bias - based on current society's ludicrous expectations of how a woman should present in public.
And it confuses the priority. Is it really about the soldier being "ready" at all times to wear the uniform and spring in to action? Or is it about controlling those who are different? And about trying to make a cosmetic and personal-preference issue somehow appear to be a danger or hazard to the ability to do the job.
Seems like the "standard" ought to be to ensure proper fitting and wearing of the uniform. And it seems like the hairstyle preference could easily be monitored way down on the chain-of-command to ensure readiness for duty.
If/when the individual soldier demonstrates that the hair (or whatever) does not negatively impact the ability to do the job, that should be the end of it. The first-line officer ought to be able to keep an eye on that rather easily.
Treating everyone the same can actually be quite discriminatory:
1. You must all have the same haircut - an arbitrary boundary and an ideal cut for some but highly undesirable for others. (This approach is easy to determine visually and from afar)
2. Your headgear must fit to provide appropriate security for the head - a reasonable and desirable expectation for all. (This approach requires someone to take a moment to make sure - and throws some personal responsibility on each soldier)
When you look at rules, you must always question their purpose - not just the language used - as well as the consequences.
If the cornrows style is so awesome, how about making it the required hairstyle for everyone? Some men, especially white men, are so accustomed to (white) male privilege that I wonder if they have lost their ability to see beyond their own convenience. Or the obvious double-standards.
I have hair that is super fine and absolutely straight. Classic "white" hair. (Except that the grays that are coming in now are thick and kinky!!) So I really know nothing about other types of hair. But my son is half Jamaican - which was intentional - to increase the diversity of his personal gene pool. His hair is a nice blend of mine and the donor, but didn't require me to learn new hair things!
This "regulation" reeks of control and oppression under the false face of safety and security. But that is not unlike the politicians who profess to be concerned about women's health while they restrict access to birth control and reproductive health. Pro-life my ass.