Is it time for gendered hair standards to go?

[Scott]

I was actually interested in the difference between CF members and the cadets. I think there would be an undeniable argument for male and female cadets to have a single standard. I was surprised that they still have gendered standards which are enforceable by denying membership. Shocking.

Better get your lawyer on that one then, the Cadets don't get paid and can't afford it.

 

[OldSolduer]

I was actually interested in the difference between CF members and the cadets. I think there would be an undeniable argument for male and female cadets to have a single standard. I was surprised that they still have gendered standards which are enforceable by denying membership. Shocking.

Explain. Sorry I am a bit thick at times.

Oh.....how long have you been in the CF and what unit are you in?

 

[brihard]

I was actually interested in the difference between CF members and the cadets. I think there would be an undeniable argument for male and female cadets to have a single standard. I was surprised that they still have gendered standards which are enforceable by denying membership. Shocking.

Your manufactured shock lends no additional credence to your one man fighting patrol.

I genuinely look forward to hearing the AAR on this one. I think it shall be amusing whether you go the grievance, CHRC, or '**** you, charge me' route.

I am also curious about how long you've been in the military and in approximately what capacity.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I was actually interested in the difference between CF members and the cadets. I think there would be an undeniable argument for male and female cadets to have a single standard. I was surprised that they still have gendered standards which are enforceable by denying membership. Shocking.

Oh great, something else for me to lose sleep over now, thanks a lot.

 

[hunter22]

We have had these standards in place since WW 1. Why change?

Give me your reasons.

My main reason is this. Different standards are applied to men and women for no reason. The Charter and CHRA guarantees me protection from discrimination on the basis of sex. That it is still happening to young people in the cadets (when they do not sign on for any such rules) is quite surprising.

It is an outdated standard and it is time for it to change.

(Army, Approx. 15 years).

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Let's not make this personal folks.

 

[Messorius]

2. Shorter hair is lower maintenance - that is interesting. Women seem to fare just fine. I would say getting haircuts two or more times a month is quite high maintenance as opposed to once every two months.

The care required for long hair to be kept neat and put up daily isn't really comparable in the slightest, speaking as someone who could sit on her hair when she started paperwork and now has it clipped very short.  5min+ opposed to 5 seconds and a wet comb.

 

[OldSolduer]

My main reason is this. Different standards are applied to men and women for no reason. The Charter and CHRA guarantees me protection from discrimination on the basis of sex. That it is still happening to young people in the cadets (when they do not sign on for any such rules) is quite surprising.

It is an outdated standard and it is time for it to change.

(Army, Approx. 15 years).

So by your reasoning we should be equal....not equitable?

In 1975 Sgt Rafter, RCR, told us why we have short hair. We do it as a sign of our commitment to our nation.

Maybe that isn't important to you, but it is to me.

 

[hunter22]

The care required for long hair to be kept neat and put up daily isn't really comparable in the slightest, speaking as someone who could sit on her hair when she started paperwork and now has it clipped very short.  5min+ opposed to 5 seconds and a wet comb.

So with respect, would you say that all women should be forced to cut their hair to the 'male' standard when joining - because that is what I am forced to do because of my sex. This discussion isn't about what hairstyle is lowest maintenance - it is about the existence of a clearly discriminatory standard on the basis of sex.

 

[brihard]

Whatever, dude. You want to make a crusade of this, fill your boots.

The one last bit of gratis advice I will give you is, for the love of God, let your chain of command find out about your commencement of a complaint, claim, or injunction against Her Majesty's CF from you, not when some lawyer from the CHRC serves your CO with papers. You DO have a responsibility to attempt to resolve this at the lowest level, working progressively upwards from there and keeping your chain of command informed throughout such as is appropriate.

Whatever else should play out on this, you DO remain a member of the C.F. and owe your chain of command loyalty and obedience, including keeping them informed about issues that WILL result in some serious ass pain higher up.

 

[Messorius]

So with respect, would you say that all women should be forced to cut their hair to the 'male' standard when joining - because that is what I am forced to do because of my sex. This discussion isn't about what hairstyle is lowest maintenance - it is about the existence of a clearly discriminatory standard on the basis of sex.

You'd have to start by proving to me that they were forcing you do do anything, since I'm pretty sure we're not drafting anyone at the moment.

 

[hunter22]

You'd have to start by proving to me that they were forcing you do do anything, since I'm pretty sure we're not drafting anyone at the moment.

Messorius - You don't sign away your Charter rights by joining the Canadian Forces. Some of them are compromised, but it is to the extent required for military service. I would say that a law that limits mobility (ie. those related to AWOL) is defensible. A requirement for a haircut based on sex discrimination is not. Although I understand your argument in saying that all military service is voluntary, that does not mean that by enrolling I need to subject myself to discriminatory practices in regulations.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Personally I don`t think men should have long hair in general but the whole argument is whether it is legal in Canada which under the charter not if I think it is right or wrong. It is a similar attitude such as women shouldn't be in the military of the 1970`s and women cannot be combat arms or other trades as they are female. This time it is kinda reversed around. If women can perform there job effectively with long hair then it can be reasonably assumed men can to. Saying to keep something just for the sake of we have always done or it is standard is stupid. If the dress regs were changed so that everyone in the Canadian Forces are to wear pink uniforms (for example) than that would be the new standard.
Make a single standard it is only hair after all. Whether it is long or short, stud earrings or not, 8 pushups or 19, I don`t care but have the same standard for both genders as they both are doing the same job.

 

[armyvern]

... This time it is kinda reversed around. If women can perform there job effectively with long hair then it can be reasonably assumed men can to. ...
Make a single standard it is only hair after all. Whether it is long or short, stud earrings or not, 8 pushups or 19, I don`t care but have the same standard for both genders as they both are doing the same job.

I've posted previously as to the actual dress regs on hair that obviously indicate that the reasoning for the differences is NOT based upon "operational effectiveness".  Mine can be worn down in my operational uniform, yet must be bunned in my DEU.  Obviously, the difference is not "operational" based then.

Even if he "wins to right" the wear his hair IAW female dress regulations, there will still be at least two standards out there (Native Canadians); so it ain't about "a common" standard either.

If, what he is after is "gender equalness in dress regs", then he must fight the whole kit and kaboodle ... high heels, hair, ear-rings, skirts etc.  If my being subject to a differing dress standard than he is, is WHAT actually is causing him the harm (and that is where he seems to be arguing the harm is caused), then all of those differing standards cause harm to him equally and must be addressed.

 

[hunter22]

If, what he is after is "gender equalness in dress regs", then he must fight the whole kit and kaboodle ... high heels, hair, ear-rings, skirts etc.  If my being subject to a differing dress standard than he is WHAT actually is causing him the harm (and that is where he seems to be arguing the harm is caused), then all of those differing standards cause harm to him equally.

I disagree. There is clearly a reason why a male CF member cannot walk around in high heels, makeup and a skirt just because he feels like it. That would bring discredit upon the Canadian Forces because it has not yet reached a point where it is socially acceptable. Although the Canadian Forces (rightly) allows for this with transgender individuals, I cannot do it just because I feel like trying out something new on Fridays.

I think that men's hair length has reached a different place in contemporary society. The argument regarding discredit on the Canadian Forces does not hold water in the same way when it comes to hair (and yes, possibly earrings too). Times have changed, there is no reason here for a sex-based standard and it should be discarded. It is clearly discriminatory on the basis of sex, and as a Canadian citizen, I am guaranteed protection from such discrimination under the Charter and the CHRA.

 

[brihard]

...as a Canadian citizen, I am guaranteed protection from such discrimination.

...Subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Why does everyone always forget that part of the Charter? It's only the very first section...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Alright folks, the conversation has gone circular a couple of times.

No one's mind is being changed and no one is putting forth anything new.

Once hunter22 has un\successfully completes his human rights challenge, he can ask a Mod to reopen his thread and post the decision.

We're not spending anymore time on the repetitive back and forth.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[McG]

I think his hardship is that, as a male member of the CF, he cannot go down to the bar in the evenings and lure all the ladies with his long blonde Fabio locks.  So, I don't think he will push his agenda onto skirts and high heels.

Personally, I hope he is not successful.  I don't want to see this change.
However, the OP makes a compelling argument. There is no operational requirement for the differentiation in hair regulations for men and women (nor do I believe there is another argument that can be demonstrably justified).  Maybe, in modern Canada, the military should have unisex operational and DEU hair standards.  … but, I am in no hurry to find out.  We can keep doing things the same old way for now.

[edit: apologies for posting through the block - I did not notice it was there.]