Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Racism in the US just blows my mind

Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 8:05:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is just ridiculous on so many level. If someone has such a fragile psyche that they cannot deal with seeing twists, then that person really shouldn't be anywhere near a battlefield.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 8:54:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 8:23:51 AM, tulle wrote:
I wish it weren't so commonplace.

http://www.msnbc.com...
http://www.msnbc.com...
http://blackgirllonghair.com...
http://m.wisn.com...

Jesus, the one lady cut the kid's hair off? I want to know where they find these people. This is just one of the absurdly irrational things that I will never understand; I just don't get why someone's hair matters. I work at the PLCB for a second job, and they have similar ridiculous standards in their dress code, and when I asked someone about it they said that they had problems with 'unprofessional' hair in Philadelphia. Seriously? Maybe it's because people in that area have a bit of a different genetic makeup, resulting in different hair structure and, therefore, different hair styles? Isn't that obvious? Unless their hair is knocking bottles off of the shelf, it shouldn't be an issue.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 9:19:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 7:58:44 AM, tulle wrote:
http://www.maneobjective.com...

How is this racism, exactly?
Further, I would have assumed that, like men's hair, their hair needs to be short (buzz cut). Why should women be allowed to have long hair, which, if the braid comes undone, or the clip falls out, it is a danger to herself and her troop?

It is pragmatism, not racism or sexism.
My work here is, finally, done.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 9:43:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 8:05:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is just ridiculous on so many level. If someone has such a fragile psyche that they cannot deal with seeing twists, then that person really shouldn't be anywhere near a battlefield.

That's not the point. The point is that the military has incentive to maintain uniformity within its ranks. It may seem silly, but shallow things like this can go a long way. There was a study which found that school uniforms improve student performance because they are more inclined to take their learning seriously.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 9:53:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 9:43:54 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/30/2014 8:05:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is just ridiculous on so many level. If someone has such a fragile psyche that they cannot deal with seeing twists, then that person really shouldn't be anywhere near a battlefield.

That's not the point. The point is that the military has incentive to maintain uniformity within its ranks. It may seem silly, but shallow things like this can go a long way. There was a study which found that school uniforms improve student performance because they are more inclined to take their learning seriously.

The problem is when 'uniformity' becomes synonymous with 'white'. Do you have any idea how difficult it is for a black woman to maintain the 'white' hair that these dress codes mandate? Your point completely fails to address the point that the problem isn't with dress code, it's with defining acceptability in a way that is objectively exclusionary on a racial basis.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 10:00:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 9:53:02 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:43:54 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/30/2014 8:05:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is just ridiculous on so many level. If someone has such a fragile psyche that they cannot deal with seeing twists, then that person really shouldn't be anywhere near a battlefield.

That's not the point. The point is that the military has incentive to maintain uniformity within its ranks. It may seem silly, but shallow things like this can go a long way. There was a study which found that school uniforms improve student performance because they are more inclined to take their learning seriously.

The problem is when 'uniformity' becomes synonymous with 'white'. Do you have any idea how difficult it is for a black woman to maintain the 'white' hair that these dress codes mandate? Your point completely fails to address the point that the problem isn't with dress code, it's with defining acceptability in a way that is objectively exclusionary on a racial basis.

My question to you is: does this mandate increase uniformity, and could you offer a viable alternative given that uniformity is what the military is after?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 10:35:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 8:05:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is just ridiculous on so many level. If someone has such a fragile psyche that they cannot deal with seeing twists, then that person really shouldn't be anywhere near a battlefield.

I see the problem as long hair that needs to be in twists at all.
If the twists unravel, and hair is in your face, can you do your job when lives depend on you?

Why is this racism only applicable to women, by the way?
Why can't men have dreads or twists or things?
Hair is short, and is so for a reason.
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 2:28:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 7:58:44 AM, tulle wrote:
http://www.maneobjective.com...

lol, ok. I don't know enough about female hairstyles, and especially black female hairstyles, to be able to give a cogent opinion on this specifically.

What I do know is that military regulations do not apply to society as a whole, and are rather strict. Here's an example, an army guidebook. Just scroll down, notice the mammoth size of the thing, the pictures (the blandness), etc...

http://www.apd.army.mil...

Memory recalls that there were guidelines on precisely how many half-inches your belt buckle had to be from the button line of your shirt, precisely how many quarter-inches your rank insignia had to be from this-or-that direction when pinned on your collar, etc...

Also, all military regulations have punitive measures attached to them...those punitive measures are how they are regulated, yes? =) This is the same for any traffic regulations too, yes?

As it is, I've served with plenty of women, many of whom were black. Most women did very well in the services (it would take very motivated women to join is my explanation), race was not a limiting factor from what I could tell.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 3:07:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 2:28:59 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Also, if memory serves, it is illegal to do the following, as in be put in jail:
1. Commit adultery, or similar acts, that are "unbecoming of an officer"
2. Speak publicly and critical about a commanding officer, like the president
3. Not showing up for work

These things are all illegal for the government to punish a civilian for.
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 3:14:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 3:07:14 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/30/2014 2:28:59 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Also, if memory serves, it is illegal to do the following, as in be put in jail:
1. Commit adultery, or similar acts, that are "unbecoming of an officer"

Adultery is typically not pursued by prosecutors. It's something that's typically tagged onto some other crime tangential to marital infidelity, like say prostitution.

2. Speak publicly and critical about a commanding officer, like the president

I'm fairly certain this will not land you in jail. It's against regulation, punishment may vary. I don't think it would involve a demotion, and the crime you commit would predicate that you be demoted first before facing prison time in the military, as the latter is more severe punishment.

More than likely this specific offense would result in counseling, maybe paperwork. More than likely that paperwork would not stick, and that paperwork would probably only be written if you were a habitual offender.

3. Not showing up for work

Not showing up for work is a serious offense. That's dereliction of duty, one step shy of desertion. Depending on the circumstances, that can result in demotion.

In the military, you can't be fired...that job security comes with its own interesting conditions, one of which is that you have stricter obligations to perform on your job.

These things are all illegal for the government to punish a civilian for.

Welcome to the military.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 3:17:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 3:07:14 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/30/2014 2:28:59 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Also, if memory serves, it is illegal to do the following, as in be put in jail:
1. Commit adultery, or similar acts, that are "unbecoming of an officer"
2. Speak publicly and critical about a commanding officer, like the president
3. Not showing up for work

These things are all illegal for the government to punish a civilian for.

On a side note, one very strange aspect of military regulation is how severely punished you are for a DUI. That's career ending for most servicefolks - you may still stay in, but you're tarnished for the rest of your career...it's a scarlet letter. It's bizarre, given how strong the drinking culture is in the military.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 3:20:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 3:17:45 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/30/2014 3:07:14 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/30/2014 2:28:59 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Also, if memory serves, it is illegal to do the following, as in be put in jail:
1. Commit adultery, or similar acts, that are "unbecoming of an officer"
2. Speak publicly and critical about a commanding officer, like the president
3. Not showing up for work

These things are all illegal for the government to punish a civilian for.

On a side note, one very strange aspect of military regulation is how severely punished you are for a DUI. That's career ending for most servicefolks - you may still stay in, but you're tarnished for the rest of your career...it's a scarlet letter. It's bizarre, given how strong the drinking culture is in the military.

Just to point out how night-and-day this one specific regulation is vis a vis the civilian world:

Punishment & Penalties for a Civilian DUI

Penalties and punishment for a civilian DUI conviction is limited to loss of driver"s license, fines, attending mandatory programs, community service, and even some jail time. Penalties are established by state law and set the minimum and maximum punishments and penalties.

Punishment & Penalties for a Military DUI

Penalties and punishment for a military DUI incident are different. There is no maximum legal sentence for military DUI, so the court has complete discretion and latitude to decide the sentence. It would not be unusual that a person convicted of a military DUI could be dishonorably discharged, required to reimburse the government for any GI Bill monies, face a loss of pension, a rank reduction including a resultant pay deduction, loss of any security clearances, monetary fines, and actual imprisonment. If you are facing a Courts Martial or Separation over an on-post DUI or other charges, you owe it to yourself and your military career to brainstorm your circumstances with a private military defense attorney. Following a confidential phone call, you"ll have the peace of mind of knowing your various options.


http://militarylawcenter.com...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 5:15:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 10:35:57 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/30/2014 8:05:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is just ridiculous on so many level. If someone has such a fragile psyche that they cannot deal with seeing twists, then that person really shouldn't be anywhere near a battlefield.

I see the problem as long hair that needs to be in twists at all.
If the twists unravel, and hair is in your face, can you do your job when lives depend on you?

Why is this racism only applicable to women, by the way?
Why can't men have dreads or twists or things?
Hair is short, and is so for a reason.

The problem is that women are allowed to have long hair, but only long 'white' hair. You are right that short hair being required across the board would be fair, but that isn't the case.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 5:17:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 10:00:47 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:53:02 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:43:54 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/30/2014 8:05:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is just ridiculous on so many level. If someone has such a fragile psyche that they cannot deal with seeing twists, then that person really shouldn't be anywhere near a battlefield.

That's not the point. The point is that the military has incentive to maintain uniformity within its ranks. It may seem silly, but shallow things like this can go a long way. There was a study which found that school uniforms improve student performance because they are more inclined to take their learning seriously.

The problem is when 'uniformity' becomes synonymous with 'white'. Do you have any idea how difficult it is for a black woman to maintain the 'white' hair that these dress codes mandate? Your point completely fails to address the point that the problem isn't with dress code, it's with defining acceptability in a way that is objectively exclusionary on a racial basis.

My question to you is: does this mandate increase uniformity, and could you offer a viable alternative given that uniformity is what the military is after?

If we're going to go any further with this I'll need to look at this study, as I'm pretty sure that the relationship between uniformity and increased performance isn't a perfectly linear one.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 9:37:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It is a bit of a stretch to call this racist, especially considering corn rows are acceptable. This isn't so much about targeting hairstyles more typical of a certain race as it is to having hair secured and out of the way.

This policy could be summed up as, if your hair is 2" or longer it must be secured in an approved manner.
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 12:09:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 7:58:44 AM, tulle wrote:
http://www.maneobjective.com...

The hair thing just confuses me. It confuses me in the corporate world. It confuses me in the military. I can appreciate the need to look professional, but this is bullsh!t.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 7:59:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If I had my way women in the military would have to get fades and high n tights just like men. Equality in every aspect.

As for the idea that this is somehow racist, this is absolutely absurd. I kinda get the argument about the whole "the standard is for white hair" but even this falls short of understanding the military. In the military uniformity is EVERYTHING. Ever watch military units practicing drill?

A standard for hair had to be picked. And this is what they choose. Mainly for logical reasons, not racial. And while I'm no expert on female hair I'm guessing it's probably easier for black women to wear their hair "white" then it is for white women to wear their hair "black".
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 11:07:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I thought about writing responses to each of you but... I just don't have the motivation. The fact that you can wear a wig (that resembles a white person's hair), which can be easily snatched off during combat, should say enough in my opinion.
yang.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 11:59:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 7:59:23 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
If I had my way women in the military would have to get fades and high n tights just like men. Equality in every aspect.

As for the idea that this is somehow racist, this is absolutely absurd. I kinda get the argument about the whole "the standard is for white hair" but even this falls short of understanding the military. In the military uniformity is EVERYTHING. Ever watch military units practicing drill?

A standard for hair had to be picked. And this is what they choose. Mainly for logical reasons, not racial. And while I'm no expert on female hair I'm guessing it's probably easier for black women to wear their hair "white" then it is for white women to wear their hair "black".

lol, I could see someone going apesh!t after reading this...=)

IMHO if uniformity was really the ultimate goal, everyone should just shave their head off and dye their skin. None of this white/black black/white bullsh!t.

slo1's point about cornrows was a really good one. Now that I know what that is, I did work pretty closely with a black female that kept her hair like that. She was one of the best operatives in our unit. From slo1's comment, I would say that current regulation is accommodating enough for people to keep their hair in the (extremely) conservative image that the military likes to keep.

At 4/1/2014 11:07:59 AM, tulle wrote:
I thought about writing responses to each of you but... I just don't have the motivation. The fact that you can wear a wig (that resembles a white person's hair), which can be easily snatched off during combat, should say enough in my opinion.

lol, agree this is a bit ridiculous.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 12:03:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I just want to add that for the military, the most important aspect of hair is that it does not interfere with your cover (your camouflaged hat). Hence the buns, the fade, the emphasis on length, etc...

I still remember the story passed in basic as to why conformity and uniformity is so important...the carrot top in a unit who forgot his cover during a march and was spotted by enemy scouts. One person in an entire unit who did not conform to regulation cost the entire unit their lives.

The military is supremely practical before anything else.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 12:53:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 11:59:27 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/1/2014 7:59:23 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
If I had my way women in the military would have to get fades and high n tights just like men. Equality in every aspect.

As for the idea that this is somehow racist, this is absolutely absurd. I kinda get the argument about the whole "the standard is for white hair" but even this falls short of understanding the military. In the military uniformity is EVERYTHING. Ever watch military units practicing drill?

A standard for hair had to be picked. And this is what they choose. Mainly for logical reasons, not racial. And while I'm no expert on female hair I'm guessing it's probably easier for black women to wear their hair "white" then it is for white women to wear their hair "black".

lol, I could see someone going apesh!t after reading this...=)

Lol. I'm sure I will. But as I said I'm not expert on their hair whatsoever and was merely guessing.

IMHO if uniformity was really the ultimate goal, everyone should just shave their head off and dye their skin. None of this white/black black/white bullsh!t.

That's pretty close to what I think, just not the dye and completely bald thing. But I'm all for women getting fades and high n tights.

slo1's point about cornrows was a really good one. Now that I know what that is, I did work pretty closely with a black female that kept her hair like that. She was one of the best operatives in our unit. From slo1's comment, I would say that current regulation is accommodating enough for people to keep their hair in the (extremely) conservative image that the military likes to keep.

I can't really speak that much since I still haven't bothered looking these hair-dues up. Interesting thing I did find while looking up the actual order, not some random civvies Facebook blog or whatever, was that this knew order only applies to women that are actually in country. For those who don't know what that means, deployed to a foreign nation where combat operations are actively conducted. So when they're back in garrison in America they still can wear their hair like they have been.

At 4/1/2014 11:07:59 AM, tulle wrote:
I thought about writing responses to each of you but... I just don't have the motivation. The fact that you can wear a wig (that resembles a white person's hair), which can be easily snatched off during combat, should say enough in my opinion.

lol, agree this is a bit ridiculous.

I disagree. First off the whole "a white persons hair" thing is ridicules and unfounded. It's simply the standard that was chosen and from my understanding it was chosen because it is the most conservative look and the easiest to achieve and maintain. And secondly the getting your wig snatched off is unrealistic since if your in combat then your going to be wearing your Kevlar "helmet if you don't know) so how the hell is someone going to be able to "easily snatch off"?

It's my personal opinion that the people getting so uppity about this simply lack knowledge on military lifestyle and activities. Not their fault so no harm done but I just feel their complaints are unfounded.
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 1:05:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 7:58:44 AM, tulle wrote:
http://www.maneobjective.com...

It shouldn't surprise you... Especially when majority of Americans are in love with Hollywood.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 1:16:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 12:53:10 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 4/1/2014 11:59:27 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/1/2014 7:59:23 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
If I had my way women in the military would have to get fades and high n tights just like men. Equality in every aspect.

As for the idea that this is somehow racist, this is absolutely absurd. I kinda get the argument about the whole "the standard is for white hair" but even this falls short of understanding the military. In the military uniformity is EVERYTHING. Ever watch military units practicing drill?

A standard for hair had to be picked. And this is what they choose. Mainly for logical reasons, not racial. And while I'm no expert on female hair I'm guessing it's probably easier for black women to wear their hair "white" then it is for white women to wear their hair "black".

lol, I could see someone going apesh!t after reading this...=)

Lol. I'm sure I will. But as I said I'm not expert on their hair whatsoever and was merely guessing.

IMHO if uniformity was really the ultimate goal, everyone should just shave their head off and dye their skin. None of this white/black black/white bullsh!t.

That's pretty close to what I think, just not the dye and completely bald thing. But I'm all for women getting fades and high n tights.

I really don't care unless it interferes with functionality. The whole cover/kevlar thing is enough for me, so as long as people can get their hair under control I don't care how they keep it. I think that's the spirit of the regulation as well...the main emphasis seems to be on length and whether or not certain hair styles will interfere with your cover.

Maybe it was just me but I would actually get visibly angry whenever I saw women with hair that spilled out of their cover (i.e. not in a bun or what not). I say women only because for men the regulation is such that it's almost impossible for this to occur.

slo1's point about cornrows was a really good one. Now that I know what that is, I did work pretty closely with a black female that kept her hair like that. She was one of the best operatives in our unit. From slo1's comment, I would say that current regulation is accommodating enough for people to keep their hair in the (extremely) conservative image that the military likes to keep.

I can't really speak that much since I still haven't bothered looking these hair-dues up. Interesting thing I did find while looking up the actual order, not some random civvies Facebook blog or whatever, was that this knew order only applies to women that are actually in country. For those who don't know what that means, deployed to a foreign nation where combat operations are actively conducted. So when they're back in garrison in America they still can wear their hair like they have been.

At 4/1/2014 11:07:59 AM, tulle wrote:
I thought about writing responses to each of you but... I just don't have the motivation. The fact that you can wear a wig (that resembles a white person's hair), which can be easily snatched off during combat, should say enough in my opinion.

lol, agree this is a bit ridiculous.

I disagree. First off the whole "a white persons hair" thing is ridicules and unfounded. It's simply the standard that was chosen and from my understanding it was chosen because it is the most conservative look and the easiest to achieve and maintain. And secondly the getting your wig snatched off is unrealistic since if your in combat then your going to be wearing your Kevlar "helmet if you don't know) so how the hell is someone going to be able to "easily snatch off"?

It's my personal opinion that the people getting so uppity about this simply lack knowledge on military lifestyle and activities. Not their fault so no harm done but I just feel their complaints are unfounded.

lol, I agree, but my main point was not about the "white person's wig" than a wig in general. Most guys I knew that were going bald just shaved their whole head. Anyone sporting a wig would have been laughed out of the unit. I mean, really, why?? Because some fat colonel didn't want his wife divorcing him? I'd think that would make her even more inclined, if a guy was going to be so insecure about his looks to sport a wig.

I mean, we're not dealing with people going on chemotherapy or anything...this is the military.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
jaksunmadness
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 11:11:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Shouldn't the most clean and easily managable look be just shave the head completely? The army isn't a place to look attractive anyway.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 1:52:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A friend posted this on face book.
https://www.youtube.com...

Pretty powerful message with the first interview in the studio. She says black women are taught that there is something wrong with their hair.

I'm with her, there is nothing wrong. I find the natural look, long or short, very beautiful.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 2:05:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I will add that I have seen black men discriminated against because of corn rows. I used to hire people from temp agencies to help with logistics, mainly delivering items, to various rooms in convention centers and was asked to not hire any more men in the Philadelphia area that had cornrows because they were not of the right image.

I was flabbergasted. While I didn't say anything because the guy was a client of the company I worked at, I ignored the directive and started looking for a new job.

I will say the problem is one of corporate image. Tatoo's regardless of race are still a no no in professional business. It is too bad, but then again what does one expect from a culture of men who wear suits and ties, the most uncomfortable and least practical clothing choice one can have. We still live in a world where the book cover still maters more than what is in the book, unfortunately.