Army okays cornrows/braids

jrcjrc
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 24
    jeffyboyjeffyboy Posts: 1,055member
    Do we NEED them? I suppose not.



    Is there any reason NOT to have them? None that I can see.



    No offense, but it must be a slow news day.



    Jeff



    Edit: Well, since you posted this, you must have thoughts on it. (I've been pissy the last couple days-sorry) What's your opinion on the subject?



    [ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: jeffyboy ]</p>
  • Reply 2 of 24
    This is dumb. The only reason I can see for this is for women. If you're a guy your hair should be short.
  • Reply 3 of 24
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    If you're in the army defending our country and putting your life on the line to defend us, I don't have a problem with how you have your hair cut.



    If you're not in the army, why do you even care how they have their hair cut?
  • Reply 4 of 24
    Well I don't expect you to understand.



    There's a concept in the military that you are military property. That's why my father in law didn't like his guys getting tattoos. You don't tattoo army property without permission.



    What would happen if everyone in the navy took up wearing large loop earrings, bandanas, an eye patch and carried knives in their teeth? It wouldn't look like the US Navy that's for sure!



    What if the army grunts got skull and bones shaved into the back of their head? It wouldn't look like the professional well disciplined army we want the world to see now would it?



    Nor do we want to sent a woman who looks like Lil' Kim out to coordinate aid shipments to a far off land.



    [ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
  • Reply 5 of 24
    This seems to imply that the regulation change is for women only:



    "As they've become a lot more acceptable in society, the Army has seen that they've presented a professional appearance that really allows women to groom their hair and maintain it," Flott said.



    Also, the Navy changed their policy three or four years ago to allow cornrows for women only. I don't know about the other services.
  • Reply 6 of 24
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    [quote]There's a concept in the military that you are military property. That's why my father in law didn't like his guys getting tattoos. You don't tattoo army property without permission.



    What would happen if everyone in the navy took up wearing large loop earrings, bandanas, an eye patch and carried knives in their teeth? It wouldn't look like the US Navy that's for sure!<hr></blockquote>



    We're talking about a hair style here. Who really cares what it looks like?
  • Reply 7 of 24
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Scott:







    This is Frederik 9th. The higest ranking officer of the Danish Navy, Army and Marine from 1947 - 1972. And also King in the same periode. He had more tattoes made before he died.
  • Reply 8 of 24
    jeffyboyjeffyboy Posts: 1,055member
    I admit I have no real military knowledge, but isn't there something better the people sitting around thinking about dress codes could be doing?



    Jeff
  • Reply 9 of 24
    imacfpimacfp Posts: 750member
    Short hair is considered easier to take care of in the field I think. It also might be for safety reasons. The only Army unit allowed to have longer hair is "Delta Force" and that's because they work undercover and have to pass for civilians.
  • Reply 10 of 24
    [quote]Originally posted by Anders:

    <strong>Scott:







    This is Frederik 9th. The higest ranking officer of the Danish Navy, Army and Marine from 1947 - 1972. And also King in the same periode. He had more tattoes made before he died.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    So?
  • Reply 11 of 24
    [quote]Originally posted by jeffyboy:

    <strong>I admit I have no real military knowledge, but isn't there something better the people sitting around thinking about dress codes could be doing?



    Jeff</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Nope. They have to have someone doing it or there would be no one doing it. Right?
  • Reply 12 of 24
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,341member
    Cornrows/braids are short. Have many have you seen that stand taller than an inch! They key is low maintenence. Either cut is off in a high and tight or find some other way to keep if under a standard issue hat. Simple as that.
  • Reply 13 of 24
    [quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

    <strong>Have many have you seen that stand taller than an inch! </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I live in Chicago. I've seen everything when it comes to black hair.
  • Reply 14 of 24
    jeffyboyjeffyboy Posts: 1,055member
    [quote]Nope. They have to have someone doing it or there would be no one doing it. Right?

    <hr></blockquote>



    When our government's involved? Of course, every committee, briefing and memo is VITAL.



    You were kidding, right?



    Jeff
  • Reply 15 of 24
    [quote]Originally posted by jeffyboy:

    <strong>



    When our government's involved? Of course, every committee, briefing and memo is VITAL.



    You were kidding, right?



    Jeff</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Each branch of the military has at least one person in charge of the uniform. Yes there is enough work to be done to keep a whole department of people busy on this issue. Yes, again, it's an important job.
  • Reply 16 of 24
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    [quote]Originally posted by JRC:

    <strong>

    Do we really need cornrows/braids in the army?</strong><hr></blockquote>





    Stuart Scott would say "Boo YAH!"



    But luckily for you I'm not Stuart Scott, so I'll say "hell no." And the reason I say no is because the only reason the military would allow for something like this is that they are afraid if they don't, some group of idiots will get up-in-arms and start hollering "racism" , "cultural discrimination", "we're being victimized!", etc.



    My guess is, it's nothing more than a PC move to appease the anti-military establishment, which is hell-bent on making them look bad at all costs.



    When you're in the military, your hair, your clothes and most everything else about your outward appearance is *supposed* to be just like everyone else of your sex (and color if you want to look at that way). Individuality is not a priority, nor should it be. If you want to express yourself as an individual, get the hell out of the military (or better yet, don't join!).



    This is a joke....



    [ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
  • Reply 17 of 24
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,341member
    [quote]Originally posted by Moogs ?:

    <strong>





    Stuart Scott would say "Boo YAH!"



    But luckily for you I'm not Stuart Scott, so I'll say "hell no." And the reason I say no is because the only reason the military would allow for something like this is that they are afraid if they don't some group of idiots will get up-in-arms and start hollering "racism" , "cultural discrimination", "we're being victimized!", etc.



    Nothing more than a PC move to appease the anti-military establishment, which is hell-bent on making them look bad at all costs.



    When you're in the military, your hair, your clothes and most everything else about your outward appearance is *supposed* to be just like everyone else of your sex (and color) if you want to look at that way. Individuality is not a priority, nor should it be. Things like this are about individuality, not about being part of a unit.



    Corn rows my ass....</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I see you point but not your logic. No one has come up with a truly legitimate reason as to why braids are not an acceptable form for hair. I don't think it's about "individuality" rather than the fact that some people prefer longer hair. If we held tight to the standards then Women entering the Military should also get buzz cuts. Don't you think?
  • Reply 18 of 24
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    [quote]If we held tight to the standards then Women entering the Military should also get buzz cuts. Don't you think? <hr></blockquote>



    No, for the simple reason that one can make an argument that when in full dress uniform everyone should look presentable - especially in formal situations. Hence, the standard set forth for females should not be the same one set for the men. Men look more presentable with very short hair, women look ridiculous.



    The problem here is that they are allowing the rules to be bent based on race, not on the need for one to look presentable in uniform. That's a bad precedent...especially since dark skinned fellows tend to look much better with shaved or near-bald heads than do light skinned fellows. They don't *need* corn rows to look good - it comes natural.



    It's a PC move plain and simple.



    [ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
  • Reply 19 of 24
    It may be a PC move, but when the Navy changed its regulations to allow cornrows, the fashion started to appear in hair of all (natural) hair colors.



    Disclaimer: I'm not a female. I don't pretend to know all the requirements to make cornrows. I'm assuming that it just needs a certain length hair.
  • Reply 20 of 24
    jrcjrc Posts: 817member
    [quote]Originally posted by AppleApologist:

    <strong>It may be a PC move, but when the Navy changed its regulations to allow cornrows, the fashion started to appear in hair of all (natural) hair colors.



    Disclaimer: I'm not a female. I don't pretend to know all the requirements to make cornrows. I'm assuming that it just needs a certain length hair.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, I think you gotta start with corn as an ingredient. So, I guess carrot top (AT&T) uses something different.
Sign In or Register to comment.