PDA

View Full Version : Navy Bootcamp Mulls No Longer Shaving Recruits' Heads



BURAWSKI
01-08-2015, 06:44 PM
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/careers/2015/01/08/rtc-boot-camp-haircuts-navy/21439483/

This is something that I think should be seriously weighed before implementing. I am betting this action is being contemplated because a survey was given to the recruits indicating whether or not they desired to have their hair shaved. I am betting the overwhelming response to that question was no. Boot Camp is becoming too soft I believe. Part of the idea is to acclimate new recruits to a different way of life and stopping the haircuts doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Also, this smacks of the inmates running the asylum.

Rainmaker
01-08-2015, 07:09 PM
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/careers/2015/01/08/rtc-boot-camp-haircuts-navy/21439483/

This is something that I think should be seriously weighed before implementing. I am betting this action is being contemplated because a survey was given to the recruits indicating whether or not they desired to have their hair shaved. I am betting the overwhelming response to that question was no. Boot Camp is becoming too soft I believe. Part of the idea is to acclimate new recruits to a different way of life and stopping the haircuts doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Also, this smacks of the inmates running the asylum.

This will be great for all the Gender confused cross-dressers they're planning to recruit. The real question to ask is Will all these new she males still have to shave their pussies?

360BHR
01-08-2015, 07:30 PM
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/careers/2015/01/08/rtc-boot-camp-haircuts-navy/21439483/

This is something that I think should be seriously weighed before implementing. I am betting this action is being contemplated because a survey was given to the recruits indicating whether or not they desired to have their hair shaved. I am betting the overwhelming response to that question was no. Boot Camp is becoming too soft I believe. Part of the idea is to acclimate new recruits to a different way of life and stopping the haircuts doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Also, this smacks of the inmates running the asylum.

I'm not saying I'm for or against this, but how is allowing male recruits to not be subjected to shaved heads any different than allowing female recruits to keep their longer hair as long as it is 'in regs'?

The original reason for shaving recruit's heads was for sanitary reasons, in order to prevent infestation of lice. It later became the custom for male recruits in order to make them all 'uniform' in appearance while the military was still all male. Why not make females shave their heads too?

sandsjames
01-08-2015, 07:37 PM
I'm not saying I'm for or against this, but how is allowing male recruits to not be subjected to shaved heads any different than allowing female recruits to keep their longer hair as long as it is 'in regs'?

The original reason for shaving recruit's heads was for sanitary reasons, in order to prevent infestation of lice. It later became the custom for male recruits in order to make them all 'uniform' in appearance while the military was still all male. Why not make females shave their heads too?

I started to agree with you, then changed my mind. Men are men and women are women. I think I like the fact that, as much as it's pushed on us that we are all "equal" and the same that the regs continue to show that people don't really believe that.

On one hand it pisses me off that women have it easier (hair regs, PT standards, etc) but on the other hand I believe that men are generally the stronger, more dominant sex and that we have different roles than women do. Allowing women to keep their hair is about the only thing that keeps them looking remotely female in the military. I've really got no issues with it. I also don't think they should be required to be as strong, as fast, as physically capable, because they just aren't.

Having said that, they should be kept in jobs where the physical part isn't necessary. If they want the more "dominant" role then they should have to meet the same standards.

Rainmaker
01-08-2015, 07:38 PM
I'm not saying I'm for or against this, but how is allowing male recruits to not be subjected to shaved heads any different than allowing female recruits to keep their longer hair as long as it is 'in regs'?

The original reason for shaving recruit's heads was for sanitary reasons, in order to prevent infestation of lice. It later became the custom for male recruits in order to make them all 'uniform' in appearance while the military was still all male. Why not make females shave their heads too?

Hell, Why not? Gender is just a social construct anyway. They should castrate the males while they're at it. It'll solve all these uncomfortable date rape problems. FORWARD TO THE ARMY of EUNUCHS!!

Rainmaker
01-08-2015, 07:42 PM
I started to agree with you, then changed my mind. Men are men and women are women. I think I like the fact that, as much as it's pushed on us that we are all "equal" and the same that the regs continue to show that people don't really believe that.

On one hand it pisses me off that women have it easier (hair regs, PT standards, etc) but on the other hand I believe that men are generally the stronger, more dominant sex and that we have different roles than women do. Allowing women to keep their hair is about the only thing that keeps them looking remotely female in the military. I've really got no issues with it. I also don't think they should be required to be as strong, as fast, as physically capable, because they just aren't.

Having said that, they should be kept in jobs where the physical part isn't necessary. If they want the more "dominant" role then they should have to meet the same standards.

Physical Standards are sexist and obsolete. Corn rows is our greatest strength!

garhkal
01-08-2015, 09:17 PM
I'm not saying I'm for or against this, but how is allowing male recruits to not be subjected to shaved heads any different than allowing female recruits to keep their longer hair as long as it is 'in regs'?

The original reason for shaving recruit's heads was for sanitary reasons, in order to prevent infestation of lice. It later became the custom for male recruits in order to make them all 'uniform' in appearance while the military was still all male. Why not make females shave their heads too?

That's something i always hated.. Why women were allowed a full head of hair.

360BHR
01-08-2015, 09:39 PM
I started to agree with you, then changed my mind. Men are men and women are women. I think I like the fact that, as much as it's pushed on us that we are all "equal" and the same that the regs continue to show that people don't really believe that.

On one hand it pisses me off that women have it easier (hair regs, PT standards, etc) but on the other hand I believe that men are generally the stronger, more dominant sex and that we have different roles than women do. Allowing women to keep their hair is about the only thing that keeps them looking remotely female in the military. I've really got no issues with it. I also don't think they should be required to be as strong, as fast, as physically capable, because they just aren't.

Having said that, they should be kept in jobs where the physical part isn't necessary. If they want the more "dominant" role then they should have to meet the same standards.

It isn't that I believe females should have their heads shaved during basic, I honestly don't think that is reasonable. There isn't a sanitary need for shaving heads in this day and age, therefore I do believe it is reasonable that males should be allowed to keep their hair as long as it's within regs.

sandsjames
01-08-2015, 09:43 PM
It isn't that I believe females should have their heads shaved during basic, I honestly don't think that is reasonable. There isn't a sanitary need for shaving heads in this day and age, therefore I do believe it is reasonable that males should be allowed to keep their hair as long as it's within regs.

Honestly I think it's about the ease of shaving for the "barbers" than anything else anymore.

360BHR
01-08-2015, 09:51 PM
Honestly I think it's about the ease of shaving for the "barbers" than anything else anymore.

Valid point. I suppose it would also mean more trips to the barber during boot to keep hair within regs.

Mjölnir
01-08-2015, 10:02 PM
That's something i always hated.. Why women were allowed a full head of hair.

Probably because they are women. They wear their hair differently than the men.

Mjölnir
01-08-2015, 10:07 PM
On one hand it pisses me off that women have it easier (hair regs, PT standards, etc) ...

Easier, you ever seen a woman with long hair put her hair up? I think males have it easier in that regard.

As far as physical standards, they are generally built differently. I don't expect my 4 year old to carry the same load I do for the same reason/logic. On that note though, I once had my platoon (all men) run the female Physical Fitness Test; everyone did great on the run and situps, but the flexed arm hang (female norm) in lieu of doing pull ups (male norm) kicked everyone's ass.

sandsjames
01-09-2015, 01:17 AM
As far as physical standards, they are generally built differently. I don't expect my 4 year old to carry the same load I do for the same reason/logic. And if you read my post, that's pretty much what I said. For a moderator, your comprehension can be pretty poor.

Mjölnir
01-09-2015, 09:01 AM
And if you read my post, that's pretty much what I said. For a moderator, your comprehension can be pretty poor.

I think it read it right. You said that on one had it pisses you off then explained why overall it doesn't. I don't get why it would even piss you off "on one hand" since there is a huge fundamental difference.

sandsjames
01-09-2015, 10:15 AM
I think it read it right. You said that on one had it pisses you off then explained why overall it doesn't. I don't get why it would even piss you off "on one hand" since there is a huge fundamental difference.

Glad to see someone covering AA's role while he's gone.

Maybe how I should have said it is this way. My instinct is to say that there should be one single standard for everyone otherwise it isn't a standard. But, in reality, I'm happy there are different standards because it shows that no matter how much people talk about us all being equal and the same, the different standards show that they don't actual believe that. Women are generally the weaker (physically) sex and the standards reflect that.

Though to add to you point about a 4 year old...I wouldn't expect a 4 year old to carry the same load. However, I also wouldn't expect a 20 year old 5' 6", 140 pound male to carry the same as a 20 year old, 6' 2", 215 pound male. But their standard is the same.

Mjölnir
01-09-2015, 11:28 AM
Glad to see someone covering AA's role while he's gone.

I think I am far from that.


Maybe how I should have said it is this way. My instinct is to say that there should be one single standard for everyone otherwise it isn't a standard.

Concur with you 100% ... with the caveat that males and females are fundamentally different, ergo there will be (in some cases ... in this case grooming) gender specific standards. Same could be said for medical standards -- can't expect male and female medical processes to be the same.


Women are generally the weaker (physically) sex and the standards reflect that.

Though to add to you point about a 4 year old...I wouldn't expect a 4 year old to carry the same load. However, I also wouldn't expect a 20 year old 5' 6", 140 pound male to carry the same as a 20 year old, 6' 2", 215 pound male. But their standard is the same.

Again, concur.

Mjölnir
01-09-2015, 12:51 PM
Serious question:

What is the actual training value of shaving all the males heads or cutting all the female's hair to the collar; both styles that the vast majority do not maintain after recruit training?

Rainmaker
01-09-2015, 01:06 PM
Serious question:

What is the actual training value of shaving all the males heads or cutting all the female's hair to the collar; both styles that the vast majority do not maintain after recruit training?

For The same reason they constantly scream at you in basic, or tell you what time exactly to go to bed or exactly when to get up or make you ask permission to speak. but, not after recruit training.

Aside from the Hygiene and time aspects. It's Part of stripping away your individuality and imposing cultural uniformity on a group of individuals.

Given the narcissistic "Selfie" culture of Americans today, I'd say it's more important than ever.

UncaRastus
01-09-2015, 02:38 PM
Rainmaker is correct. Shaving the head is one of the first things at MCRD San Diego or MCRD Parris Island. The recruits arriving are greeted by some snarling DIs, and at PI(speaking from my experiences there), are led into the receiving barracks, where there is (was, maybe, it has been many years since I was a DI at PI) a sign that proclaims 'Abandon all hope, ye who enter here'.

Arriving at 0200, or thereabouts, they are issued their basic gear and put into their racks, about 0330, and awakened at 0430. The haircuts are done after they wake up for the first time at bootcamp.

Back in the day, if the recruit amount was large enough, numerically speaking, they were then sent to their training platoon. Otherwise, they had to wait a day or two until that receiving barracks platoon was full up.

During that time, and thereafter, they were not allowed to speak to each other. They were immediately immersed in recruit training. During Sundays, no classroom training was done. No rifle range training, etc.. They were made to shine their boots, their barracks cover leather, and their belt tips and buckle, and made to study their 'Knowledge', the guidebook for Marines.

Every day of the week except Sunday, they were PTed, taught USMC stuff, sent to the Rose Garden (a small patch of sand at the end of the squadbay) for extra PT, including Sundays. They were yelled at. They were trained to be entry level Marines.

While I was a DI, from 50 - 70% of the recruits were either recycled or kicked out of the USMC. The platoon made up for it's recycled members by picking up recruits that had been recycled from a more advanced series. A series was made up of 4 platoons, training at the same level.

Until they graduated, Marines were put through the maximum amount of stress.

The primary reason for being so physically and mentally hard was to break the recruits out of their civilian mode of thinking and doing.

Along with being hard for that reason, the other reasons are twofold.

Being so difficult was done because, also, when one graduated, that person was most likely to immediately follow orders. Also, the graduated member was far less apt to go shy under combat situations.

Before anyone says anything about combat being harder than bootcamp ...

No matter how hard we pushed them, combat was and is hell. However, the now non-recruit was far better able to cope with combat situations. Not to say that we had the key to making them fearless, but we did make sure that every rock unturned was turned over to try to make our recruits as 'combat compliant' as possible.

So, to make a long story short?

The haircut was part of training that was used to break everyone free of their civilian thoughts.

As a sidenote, I must say that no matter how small a Marine might be, that Marine does have to carry the same load as the biggest Marine in his platoon. I have a Marine friend whose son weighs in at 143 pounds. That Marine is a grunt. He doesn't get a break for being a smaller Marine. He has to carry the same gear that every one else has to carry.

90 - 140 pounds is the normal load. If a Marine is on guard duty, he carries a much smaller load, so when I say a normal load, I mean the amount that Marines have to carry for much of the time, as an 0311.

All of the aforesaid was normal for the early 1970s. I can't fully speak for today's bootcamp, but I do think that as a whole, my statements probably are still valid.

Mjölnir
01-09-2015, 02:46 PM
Rainmaker is correct. Shaving the head is one of the first things at MCRD San Diego or MCRD Parris Island.

When I went to MCRD San Diego, it was the very first thing after we got off the bus.

**I wasn't arguing against doing away with haircuts ... but trying to get a better response than "don't change it cause I don't like change."

UncaRastus
01-09-2015, 02:50 PM
I knew that! Just filling in the gray area for the reason.

BURAWSKI
01-09-2015, 03:19 PM
Well to paraphrase another person who feels exactly the same way I do about this:

Stan Basford · Patapsco High School and Center for the Arts

Part of the reason for the 1/8 inch haircut was to have all recruits look the same , all part of the training so that the become one and the same and work as a team , something that most at the time of their entering basic training have NO CLUE what working as a team means , I feel it is, and will be a big mistake if that is taken off the table ! In my Navy we were told what to do and when to do it and that was just the way it was , none of this stress card , you don't have to get a haircut if you don't want one crap , it worked just fine then so stop trying to fix what's not broken , if it works leave it alone and fix what needs to be fixed ! We are suppose to be getting trained for war and life on a WARSHIP !!

Mjölnir
01-09-2015, 04:43 PM
Stress cards (at least the common interpretation of what they were/are) are a myth.

Recruits were given cards about who they could talk to about stress etc. But, contrary to legend were never an instant 'time out.'

Rollyn01
01-09-2015, 06:10 PM
Stress cards (at least the common interpretation of what they were/are) is a myth.

Recruits were given cards about who they could talk to about stress etc. But, contrary to legend were never an instant 'time out.'

Wait, if that's what they are for, doesn't that mean they are just replacing the recruits' ability to remember where they can go to talk to someone? If so, that mean their instructors fail to make the point. Are we really adding more to the recruits' load because the instructors can't train their recruits right?

Side note: Regardless of what they tell you, it's better to blame the teacher than the student. The teacher should, at a bare minimum, be able to know many ways to teach a student. A teacher that doesn't isn't adaptive or creative. Applied to the military mind-set, this person would have been dead. Where Patton to slap these people at?

Rollyn01
01-09-2015, 06:14 PM
I think I am far from that.



I think you're being called to task. Be a man and step up already before I do it. "Please don't make me do stuff."

garhkal
01-09-2015, 06:36 PM
Easier, you ever seen a woman with long hair put her hair up? I think males have it easier in that regard.

As far as physical standards, they are generally built differently. I don't expect my 4 year old to carry the same load I do for the same reason/logic. On that note though, I once had my platoon (all men) run the female Physical Fitness Test; everyone did great on the run and situps, but the flexed arm hang (female norm) in lieu of doing pull ups (male norm) kicked everyone's ass.

Were both the men and women doing the same test? Or were the women doing their hang there test while the men did pull ups?

Mjölnir
01-09-2015, 06:43 PM
Were both the men and women doing the same test? Or were the women doing their hang there test while the men did pull ups?

All males no females in the platoon. The arm hang was not as easy as they thought.

Capt Alfredo
01-10-2015, 01:22 AM
If men have to get their heads shaved, then women should, too. If the rationale for women not getting shaved (har har) is that they don't have to do that "in the fleet," then men should only be required to get an "in-regs" haircut. Shouldn't have it both ways. Either everyone needs to be "broken down" and stripped of their individuality or no one does.

Rainmaker
01-10-2015, 11:55 AM
If men have to get their heads shaved, then women should, too. If the rationale for women not getting shaved (har har) is that they don't have to do that "in the fleet," then men should only be required to get an "in-regs" haircut. Shouldn't have it both ways. Either everyone needs to be "broken down" and stripped of their individuality or no one does.

This is the Progressive Liberal mindset... a world were perceived "equality and fairness" trumps reason, decency and common-sense.

Rainmaker
01-10-2015, 12:03 PM
All males no females in the platoon. The arm hang was not as easy as they thought.

In High school Rainmaker dated a gymnast that could do 30+. It was quite humbling for a young buck the first time she challenged me to a pullup contest

Capt Alfredo
01-11-2015, 04:02 AM
This is the Progressive Liberal mindset... a world were perceived "equality and fairness" trumps reason, decency and common-sense.

I am more than happy to be labelled a Progressive Liberal Thanks! Don't agree about the second part of your comment, surprisingly. It's not that I think women should be subjected to those things, it's that I don't think men should. By applying "equality" standards, we can point out the illogic of doing things "the way we always did" for a reason that no longer exists.

TJMAC77SP
01-11-2015, 04:13 AM
I am more than happy to be labelled a Progressive Liberal Thanks! Don't agree about the second part of your comment, surprisingly. It's not that I think women should be subjected to those things, it's that I don't think men should. By applying "equality" standards, we can point out the illogic of doing things "the way we always did" for a reason that no longer exists.

That is a myopic and naïve outlook. As impolitic as is sounds, there are differences between the sexes and to attempt (repeat attempt) to equalize the requirements on both is foolish.

We all know that hygiene and whatever the myths say about making males shave their head is just that, myths and bullshit. As one poster explained, it is about reducing all recruits, regardless of their background to a common ground. As silly as it may seem to an outsider, you take a guy from Truth or Consequences, NM and a guy from Compton, LA...they walk out of that barber shop rubbing their heads they have a connection. Hence it starts.............

Capt Alfredo
01-11-2015, 04:21 AM
That is a myopic and naïve outlook. As impolitic as is sounds, there are differences between the sexes and to attempt (repeat attempt) to equalize the requirements on both is foolish.

We all know that hygiene and whatever the myths say about making males shave their head is just that, myths and bullshit. As one poster explained, it is about reducing all recruits, regardless of their background to a common ground. As silly as it may seem to an outsider, you take a guy from Truth or Consequences, NM and a guy from Compton, LA...they walk out of that barber shop rubbing their heads they have a connection. Hence it starts.............

You're not making any sense. If there is this great leap forward in cohesion and teamwork achieved by shaving mens' heads, then why not let the women in on the trick?

*Or*

Perhaps we should simply have male and female members keep their hair within regs at all times while in basic training.

sandsjames
01-11-2015, 11:36 AM
You're not making any sense. If there is this great leap forward in cohesion and teamwork achieved by shaving mens' heads, then why not let the women in on the trick?

*Or*

Perhaps we should simply have male and female members keep their hair within regs at all times while in basic training.

The women's "identity" is stripped by removing the make-up, perfumes, clothing, etc.

Rollyn01
01-11-2015, 03:16 PM
That is a myopic and naïve outlook. As impolitic as is sounds, there are differences between the sexes and to attempt (repeat attempt) to equalize the requirements on both is foolish.

We all know that hygiene and whatever the myths say about making males shave their head is just that, myths and bullshit. As one poster explained, it is about reducing all recruits, regardless of their background to a common ground. As silly as it may seem to an outsider, you take a guy from Truth or Consequences, NM and a guy from Compton, LA...they walk out of that barber shop rubbing their heads they have a connection. Hence it starts.............

I keep forgetting that that's an actual city. Every time I heard it, I mainly think of Halo.

Rainmaker
01-11-2015, 04:21 PM
I am more than happy to be labelled a Progressive Liberal Thanks! Don't agree about the second part of your comment, surprisingly. It's not that I think women should be subjected to those things, it's that I don't think men should. By applying "equality" standards, we can point out the illogic of doing things "the way we always did" for a reason that no longer exists.

"Subjected to those things" to what "things" a haircut?? Oh noooo.... the horror!!!!

So, Everyone must be treated exactly the same? Process > results. Got it.

And how is it that the "reason no longer exists"? Isn't the purpose of the military still to fight and win wars? Or does it just exist now as a social petri dish for liberal causes and pathway to citizenship for 3rd world illegal aliens?

Congratulations. You are definitely 21st Century Flag Officer Material Captain! quick somebody call Barbara Boxer before she retires and see if we can get the good Capt. a promotion!

Push the left-wing looney tune pendulum of "progress" too far and watch it break out of the cuckoo clock.Enjoy your "progress", while it lasts..

sow the wind reap the whirlwind. Bitches

garhkal
01-11-2015, 04:47 PM
All males no females in the platoon. The arm hang was not as easy as they thought.

Dang.. What was the "fail" rate?


This is the Progressive Liberal mindset... a world were perceived "equality and fairness" trumps reason, decency and common-sense.

I often see people say "common sense and decency" should trump equality, when it comes to making women do the same as men. Like in regards to a discussion i had with a pair of reporters hanging out at a Military Job fair, we chatted how the Left pushed for women to be allowed into men's locker room and how the decision to allow it was a victory for equality, but every time someone brings up the subject of letting male reporters into Female locker rooms, they keep saying "What of common decency"..

TJMAC77SP
01-11-2015, 05:42 PM
You're not making any sense. If there is this great leap forward in cohesion and teamwork achieved by shaving mens' heads, then why not let the women in on the trick?

*Or*

Perhaps we should simply have male and female members keep their hair within regs at all times while in basic training.

You are the only one saying there is a 'great leap forward'. Try making the point without inserting hyperbole.

Shaving the male's heads is simply of one of many, many things done in basic training to form a cohesive unit from a disparate group of individuals. I suppose shaving the female's heads might do the same thing but I never once heard anyone, while in basic bitch because women didn't have to shave their heads. What exactly is to be gained? If it just a matter of applying the same measures to both sexes that isn't a good enough reason. The system works and changing it for the optics is silly. The women have their own 'things' and again, it seems to work.

I am all for equal physical standards when they are directly related to a particular job or specialty but this hair thing is not that.

Rainmaker
01-11-2015, 05:45 PM
Dang.. What was the "fail" rate?



I often see people say "common sense and decency" should trump equality, when it comes to making women do the same as men. Like in regards to a discussion i had with a pair of reporters hanging out at a Military Job fair, we chatted how the Left pushed for women to be allowed into men's locker room and how the decision to allow it was a victory for equality, but every time someone brings up the subject of letting male reporters into Female locker rooms, they keep saying "What of common decency"..

Most women don't want their head shaved. I'm sure if it was imposed the recruiting quotas wouldn't be met. Most men don't much care one way or the other. This is an unnecessary change of something that's not broken and just more left-wing, libtard, social Engineering, Bullshit to appease the culture warrior crowd.

Our General Officer corps has been reduced to nothing more than a bunch of careerist,PC, Ass-Kiss politicians.

I actually saw Odierno on the other day arguing with some reporter that we didn't need as many troops for OIF invasion as Desert Storm because "It was a different type of war". Once again, Process > Results to these ideologues. The whole country is Failed state and he's still defending it.

Washington DC (including the puzzle palace) is a cesspool and needs to be cleaned out. The barbarians are inside the gates.

Rollyn01
01-11-2015, 06:05 PM
Our General Officer corps has been reduced to nothing more than a bunch of spineless,PC Ass-Kiss politicians.


Agreed wholeheartedly. They have balls the size of squirrels and even those are hard to find. What a sad shell of itself it has become.


I actually saw Oderno on the other day arguing with some reporter that we didn't need as many troops for OIF invasion as Desert Storm because "It was a different type of war". Once again, Process > Results to these ideologues.

What the fuck???? You got a link to that? I don't want to believe such stupidity without witnessing it myself. Especially since OIF/OEF are considered by most to be an extension of Desert Storm. Or has the crack been passed on to everyone up the command ladder and to everywhere else?

Rainmaker
01-11-2015, 06:14 PM
Agreed wholeheartedly. They have balls the size of squirrels and even those are hard to find. What a sad shell of itself it has become.



What the fuck???? You got a link to that? I don't want to believe such stupidity without witnessing it myself. Especially since OIF/OEF are considered by most to be an extension of Desert Storm. Or has the crack been passed on to everyone up the command ladder and to everywhere else?

Rainmaker Don't have a link to actual video. Don't have a TV in the house. but, It was on the idiot box at the Dentist office. found this article talking about it.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/11/19/odierno-rejects-comparing-gulf-war-to-recent-iraq-war/

“Is Desert Storm the same as OIF? Was it the same operation?” Odierno asked. “So why would you compare it? I mean, what we did is we expelled Iraq from Kuwait — very different from overthrowing a government and replacing its leader. It’s apples and oranges. It’s not the same operation … It’s not a fair comparison.”


The article makes it sound better than it actually was. If you find the video, you can see he was perturbed by the question. came off very arrogant. in a sort of "How dare anyone question my Generalship" way. The interviewer was trying to give him a chance and at the end Odierno recognized it and kinda back peddled. but,the phony-ness shined thru, crystal clear. Rainmaker threw up a little in his mouth when he saw it.

Mjölnir
01-11-2015, 10:27 PM
Dang.. What was the "fail" rate?

Roughly 2/3 of the platoon would have failed if it had been for score. The whole reason for me doing it that day was overhearing a conversation about how f-ed up it was that women had an 'easier' PFT than the males ... which humbled more than a few after that afternoon. Granted, they didn't know I would be doing that and males train to do pullups and not hang with their chin above the bar for 70 seconds, I am confident that given a week or two to practice everyone would have passed.

Recently the Marine Corps has indicated it wants to eliminate the arm-hang and have all Marines do pullups (different numbers for males and females to pass etc.) At the start of the test phase, 10% of women could do the minimum required 3 pullups; after 6 months (the end of the phase in) 55% could -- the Marine Corps held off on implementing the change to allow more time for women to train.

Mjölnir
01-11-2015, 10:46 PM
If men have to get their heads shaved, then women should, too. If the rationale for women not getting shaved (har har) is that they don't have to do that "in the fleet," then men should only be required to get an "in-regs" haircut. Shouldn't have it both ways. Either everyone needs to be "broken down" and stripped of their individuality or no one does.

To an extent I agree with the logic.

The shaving male’s hair was initially intended as a sanitary measure to prevent the spread of lice in close quarters.

Over time it changed into a psychological exercise of the departure from civilian life and the uniformity of military life. But, the question is ... does that actually work anymore? We also got a 30 second phone call to let family know we had arrived safely. We didn't get another phone call for almost 2 months and then one more the Sunday before we graduated. Our only real contact with the outside world was on Sundays we were allowed to purchase a newspaper to read in our 2-hour liberty period (in the barracks, usually spent hand washing laundry) on Sunday mornings. But times are now different and does the haircut do the same thing now that it did then? I am not sure it does since recruits have more contact with the outside world now than back then.

So ... if ... IF the haircut doesn't serve that purpose any longer, then why do it?

If it doesn't I would rather that time and energy be spent teaching Sailors how to properly adhere to standards once out of recruit training then doing something just because it has been done that way for a long time.

As long as a female USMC recruit could have her hair properly coiffed in time for reveille she could keep it long. I found it odd (not bad, just different) that the Marines didn't require females to cut their hair above the collar like the Navy does; but maybe there was something to that logic since I very, VERY rarely have ever seen a female Marine with hair that out of regulation but see it commonly with Sailors.

Rollyn01
01-12-2015, 12:05 AM
Rainmaker Don't have a link to actual video. Don't have a TV in the house. but, It was on the idiot box at the Dentist office. found this article talking about it.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/11/19/odierno-rejects-comparing-gulf-war-to-recent-iraq-war/

“Is Desert Storm the same as OIF? Was it the same operation?” Odierno asked. “So why would you compare it? I mean, what we did is we expelled Iraq from Kuwait — very different from overthrowing a government and replacing its leader. It’s apples and oranges. It’s not the same operation … It’s not a fair comparison.”


The article makes it sound better than it actually was. If you find the video, you can see he was perturbed by the question. came off very arrogant. in a sort of "How dare anyone question my Generalship" way. The interviewer was trying to give him a chance and at the end Odierno recognized it and kinda back peddled. but,the phony-ness shined thru, crystal clear. Rainmaker threw up a little in his mouth when he saw it.

I couldn't find a video of it but reading that article did give me a bit of a headache so I can understand the upchuck. I probably would have too.

Rainmaker
01-12-2015, 02:11 AM
I couldn't find a video of it but reading that article did give me a bit of a headache so I can understand the upchuck. I probably would have too.

It's good to know the Leadership is focused on what's important. The troops need to know how to do their hair if they're marching in parade.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/06/07/military-color-guard-to-march-in-gay-pride-parade.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/11/army-concerned-with-number-of-white-men-leading-co/

Capt Alfredo
01-12-2015, 08:53 AM
Process is indeed often more important than result. Proper processes will "result" in better outcomes than judging things only on results. See also, going for it on fourth and short in football. Just because you get stuffed for no gain doesn't mean going for it wasn't the best decision. Percentage-wise you'll gain more points per possession by going for it in many circumstances. Advanced metrics, nomesayin?

sandsjames
01-12-2015, 11:21 AM
Process is indeed often more important than result. Yep...I agree 100%. "We got our asses handed to us in battle, Sir, but the guys did what they were supposed to do." Definitely more important to get the process right.

Rainmaker
01-12-2015, 01:29 PM
Yep...I agree 100%. "We got our asses handed to us in battle, Sir, but the guys did what they were supposed to do." Definitely more important to get the process right.

Perfect example. COIN doctrine, Hearts and Minds. Sounds great in Academia. Doesn't work in practice. Hasn't worked in the past, Doesn't work now, won't ever work. Yet these bozo's can't change from the stated process, why? because the guy that wrote the book also wrote their ticket.

Welcome to the 21st Century Military. We can't win a damn war anymore. But, we have a hell of an HR Diversity Program!

Rainmaker
01-12-2015, 01:35 PM
Process is indeed often more important than result. Proper processes will "result" in better outcomes than judging things only on results. See also, going for it on fourth and short in football. Just because you get stuffed for no gain doesn't mean going for it wasn't the best decision. Percentage-wise you'll gain more points per possession by going for it in many circumstances. Advanced metrics, nomesayin?

A process is only good to the extent that it achieves a goal.

Our country is in the shitter because, we have embraced this flawed liberal worldview, where "fairness" is more important than the God given right of self determination.

The founders did not intend the Constitutional Republic for "equality" of stuff.

The founders intended the chance to make your OWN way, (however you legally could) without government interference, through busting your ass and risk taking, (meaning there was no Nanny State to save you from the consequences if you failed).

Rainmaker
01-12-2015, 03:24 PM
To an extent I agree with the logic.

The shaving male’s hair was initially intended as a sanitary measure to prevent the spread of lice in close quarters.

Over time it changed into a psychological exercise of the departure from civilian life and the uniformity of military life. But, the question is ... does that actually work anymore? We also got a 30 second phone call to let family know we had arrived safely. We didn't get another phone call for almost 2 months and then one more the Sunday before we graduated. Our only real contact with the outside world was on Sundays we were allowed to purchase a newspaper to read in our 2-hour liberty period (in the barracks, usually spent hand washing laundry) on Sunday mornings. But times are now different and does the haircut do the same thing now that it did then? I am not sure it does since recruits have more contact with the outside world now than back then.

So ... if ... IF the haircut doesn't serve that purpose any longer, then why do it?

If it doesn't I would rather that time and energy be spent teaching Sailors how to properly adhere to standards once out of recruit training then doing something just because it has been done that way for a long time.

As long as a female USMC recruit could have her hair properly coiffed in time for reveille she could keep it long. I found it odd (not bad, just different) that the Marines didn't require females to cut their hair above the collar like the Navy does; but maybe there was something to that logic since I very, VERY rarely have ever seen a female Marine with hair that out of regulation but see it commonly with Sailors.

So, we've given a couple (arguable) benefits of the current haircut. Then, what is the benefit of changing? After generations, Why do Navy basic trainees suddenly need to be able to choose from a variety of hairstyles? Has it really been a serious problem that after initial training they can't figure out what the regulation is?

Let's call it what it is. This whole thing only started because some black chick (whose hair was out regs for over 12 years) finally got called out on it and after refusing to comply with standards, she was separated. What's the problem? You don't want to wear the uniform right? Ok, fine then GTFO

The problem with Political Correctness is that it prevents you from making a value judgment based on performance or conduct.

Everything that's been foisted on the force in the last 6 years by these ideologues, has been done with one purpose in mind...... To poison the well and separate the military from its historical recruiting base.

Cornrows are our greatest strength.

sandsjames
01-12-2015, 03:51 PM
If we're going to argue the haircuts then we should also argue the uniforms. What's the point of them if not in a combat environment? Why issue basic trainees uniforms at all? Just let them stay in their civies until they deploy. Same goes for everyone else at their home station.

USN - Retired
01-12-2015, 03:59 PM
Welcome to the 21st Century Military. We can't win a damn war anymore. But, we have a hell of an HR Diversity Program!

And the Colonels are now taking care of their Airmen's babies.

BURAWSKI
01-12-2015, 04:01 PM
If we're going to argue the haircuts then we should also argue the uniforms. What's the point of them if not in a combat environment? Why issue basic trainees uniforms at all? Just let them stay in their civies until they deploy. Same goes for everyone else at their home station.

Interesting point and I happen to agree with you. Which btw, and after thinking about it, opens the door to a host of other processes that will now be open to debate on whether or not they will be determined to be worth doing anymore. More and more issues like this will be cropping (pun not intended) up in the future.

sandsjames
01-12-2015, 04:28 PM
And the Colonels are now taking care of their Airmen's babies.

And all retired Sailors hate women and babies.

BURAWSKI
01-12-2015, 06:00 PM
And all retired Sailors hate women and babies.

Not true, not true.

SomeRandomGuy
01-12-2015, 07:26 PM
Interesting point and I happen to agree with you. Which btw, and after thinking about it, opens the door to a host of other processes that will now be open to debate on whether or not they will be determined to be worth doing anymore. More and more issues like this will be cropping (pun not intended) up in the future.

Yep, the list could go on forever. Isn't it a huge waste of time to teach people how to march? Couldn't they just form up and walk? Other than Basic Training, Parades, and Honor Guard where have you ever seen a military person march anywhere?

Rainmaker
01-12-2015, 07:38 PM
Yep, the list could go on forever. Isn't it a huge waste of time to teach people how to march? Couldn't they just form up and walk? Other than Basic Training, Parades, and Honor Guard where have you ever seen a military person march anywhere?

How bout shaving? It's such a drag. I bet if you took a survey most recruits would rather not have to be bothered with it. Besides Combat troops don't always shave in the field. Shaving is just an antiquated concept brought to us by the rayciss Romans (who considered facial hair barbaric).

sandsjames
01-12-2015, 09:26 PM
Not true, not true.


I know...was just making the point to USN Retired as he seems to think that one picture of a Commander holding a baby means that the position has become a daycare.

USN - Retired
01-12-2015, 10:50 PM
I know...was just making the point to USN Retired as he seems to think that one picture of a Commander holding a baby means that the position has become a daycare.

So are you saying that it is not daycare? So are you saying that the deputy commander was doing a special favor for her Airman? Then that is favoritism. You are making a very serious charge against the deputy commander.

Mjölnir
01-12-2015, 11:21 PM
So are you saying that the deputy commander was doing a special favor for her Airman? Then that is favoritism.

No, it would be favoritism if the Col in that picture was only willing to do it for that one Airman; something you nor I really know based on that one photo.

BURAWSKI
01-12-2015, 11:39 PM
No, it would be favoritism if the Col in that picture was only willing to do it for that one Airman; something you nor I really know based on that one photo.

Ahhh but the power of perception is what can cause problems, regardless of what the intentions are. I know the Navy takes that in consideration on fraternization, and have seen people get burned just on perception alone.

Mjölnir
01-12-2015, 11:53 PM
Ahhh but the power of perception is what can cause problems, regardless of what the intentions are. I know the Navy takes that in consideration on fraternization, and have seen people get burned just on perception alone.

I would concur. But in the case of that photo, very few people perceived it as favoritism. If it was a majority I would agree with you / USN _Ret ... but very few people having an issue with it -- probably fueled by other issues/factors doesn't make it so.

TJMAC77SP
01-13-2015, 04:05 AM
So are you saying that it is not daycare? So are you saying that the deputy commander was doing a special favor for her Airman? Then that is favoritism. You are making a very serious charge against the deputy commander.

Damn USN...........let it go. I know you think you are scoring points but trust me, not happenin'

Capt Alfredo
01-13-2015, 09:18 AM
Yep...I agree 100%. "We got our asses handed to us in battle, Sir, but the guys did what they were supposed to do." Definitely more important to get the process right.

You purposefully missed the point. Good processes will win you more battles than poor processes with a lucky outcome. You win more battles, you win the war. Not saying the haircut thing is objectively a good or bad process, just that we should think about ALL our processes and ask ourselves, does this help put in place a repeatable method for success. I doubt the haircut would...uh...make the cut. Beards, either, for that matter.

sandsjames
01-13-2015, 10:09 AM
You purposefully missed the point. Good processes will win you more battles than poor processes with a lucky outcome. You win more battles, you win the war. I'd agree, if the process is relevant to the outcome. Unfortunately, a majority of the processes don't actually relate to the mission.


Not saying the haircut thing is objectively a good or bad process, just that we should think about ALL our processes and ask ourselves, does this help put in place a repeatable method for success. I doubt the haircut would...uh...make the cut. Beards, either, for that matter.So are you saying that the haircuts aren't important...that they aren't important to the process of discipline and uniformity? If so, I'm not sure I'm following your argument.

Capt Alfredo
01-13-2015, 10:42 AM
So are you saying that the haircuts aren't important...that they aren't important to the process of discipline and uniformity? If so, I'm not sure I'm following your argument.

They must not be important, since they don't make the women do it. If it were that important, they would make ALL service members do it and not just the male ones.

UncaRastus
01-13-2015, 12:02 PM
I remember from back in the days of Admiral Zumwalt and his 'Zoomies', how his directives came down, allowing beer during lunch at the chow halls, beer machines in the barracks, hair grown out to 5 inches, and beards! Lots and lots of beards!

Of course, having been in the USMC at the time, I was jealous of the sailors.

That all pretty much died out in the mid 1980s, due to a return back to earlier policies. The mid 70's was an 'experiment' in Navy life, as to the Zoomies.

Mcjohn1118
01-13-2015, 12:20 PM
How bout shaving? It's such a drag. I bet if you took a survey most recruits would rather not have to be bothered with it. Besides Combat troops don't always shave in the field. Shaving is just an antiquated concept brought to us by the rayciss Romans (who considered facial hair barbaric).

Rainmaker, it's interesting you brought up shaving. I just learned after serving and retiring after 21 years that the AF doesn't require men to shave. I did a qucik look in 2903 with a word search for shave or shaving and there is no requirement for men to shave everyday. All that is mentioned for men and facial hair is beards, shaving waivers and sideburns. There is no requirement to shave everyday. So is the stubble look authorized if not prohibited?

Rainmaker
01-13-2015, 01:10 PM
Rainmaker, it's interesting you brought up shaving. I just learned after serving and retiring after 21 years that the AF doesn't require men to shave. I did a qucik look in 2903 with a word search for shave or shaving and there is no requirement for men to shave everyday. All that is mentioned for men and facial hair is beards, shaving waivers and sideburns. There is no requirement to shave everyday. So is the stubble look authorized if not prohibited?

Interesting. So, If you require a waiver not to shave, then isn't it implied? I think recruits should stop making their beds. It's just gonna get messed up at night anyway.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxBQLFLei70

If you haven't already seen this speech it's worth a watch. at about 4:08. this man tells a thing or two about the value of standards

Rainmaker
01-13-2015, 02:20 PM
You purposefully missed the point. Good processes will win you more battles than poor processes with a lucky outcome. You win more battles, you win the war. Not saying the haircut thing is objectively a good or bad process, just that we should think about ALL our processes and ask ourselves, does this help put in place a repeatable method for success. I doubt the haircut would...uh...make the cut. Beards, either, for that matter.

You mean like Vietnam, OEF, OIF???.... You have to have an end goal identified and pursue the goal with the end in mind.

Purpose of Strict Grooming standards is to support good order and discipline and teach attention to small details, to allow you to focus on more important matters.

Again what's wrong with the current standard? Other than one black girl wanting to be able to wear corn rows, and refusing to comply with standards when called out on it.

We all know what this "review" is really about.

BURAWSKI
01-13-2015, 02:46 PM
You mean like Vietnam, OEF, OIF???.... You have to have an end goal identified and pursue the goal with the end in mind.

Purpose of Strict Grooming standards is to support good order and discipline and teach attention to small details, to allow you to focus on more important matters.

Again what's wrong with the current standard? Other than one black girl wanting to be able to wear corn rows, and refusing to comply with standards when called out on it.

We all know what this "review" is really about.

The elephant in the room. Thank you for mentioning this. My opinion on this. A sign that the military culture is going for a fast nose dive and one which will regenerate itself into a military suitable for the 21st Century, which will hopefully be the end result. However, I think some of these changes will negatively impact on good order and discipline in the long term. It may turn out to be a very painful process.

sandsjames
01-13-2015, 03:35 PM
They must not be important, since they don't make the women do it. If it were that important, they would make ALL service members do it and not just the male ones.

Running the 1.5 miles in 14 minutes for ages 30-39 must not be important, as those over 40 have more time to do it.

Doing 62 pushups must not be important, as females don't have to do it.

Passing the CDCs must not be important, as waivers are regularly granted.

This could go on and on. Do I think that haircuts are going to make a difference in the long run? No, not at all. But neither are 95% of the other regs, either.

To me, this sounds like the argument from the people who are jealous that some people get to wear flight suits when they don't.

It's not so much about the haircut, it's about (as you yourself said) the all important "process". You almost make it sound like women don't have appearance standards when, in fact, their standards for appearance are more stringent (but rarely enforced).

Rainmaker
01-13-2015, 03:52 PM
I'd agree, if the process is relevant to the outcome. Unfortunately, a majority of the processes don't actually relate to the mission.

So are you saying that the haircuts aren't important...that they aren't important to the process of discipline and uniformity? If so, I'm not sure I'm following your argument.

Government Bureaucrats are usually process vs. results oriented. Because generally speaking they are never held accountable for piss poor results.

BURAWSKI
01-13-2015, 04:47 PM
Government Bureaucrats are usually process vs. results oriented. Because generally speaking they are never held accountable for piss poor results.

It seems the flag officers function as bureaucrats, when they should actually be leading and which explain the chaos enveloping from the ad hoc decisions coming down the pike.

Mcjohn1118
01-13-2015, 05:16 PM
Interesting. So, If you require a waiver not to shave, then isn't it implied? I think recruits should stop making their beds. It's just gonna get messed up at night anyway.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxBQLFLei70

If you haven't already seen this speech it's worth a watch. at about 4:08. this man tells a thing or two about the value of standards

I agree wholeheartedly. What I was attempting to get at was that the AF doesn't have anything in writing about shaving every day. But believe me, I was a DB many of times when dudes weren't clean shaven at work. Sometimes, I was even a ballbuster for those who came into work, on-leave with a full beard. I'd ask them to show me in the regs/OIs that allows for beards while on leave. They always wondered if I was serious. It's all about standardization and that, I feel, is where the AF went wrong when switching from Regs to Instructions. Yes, there is the caveat "Compliance is Mandatory" but the terms shall versus should weren't in the Regs. It was "You will..."

Rainmaker
01-13-2015, 05:29 PM
It seems the flag officers function as bureaucrats, when they should actually be leading and which explain the chaos enveloping from the ad hoc decisions coming down the pike.

Ordo Ab Chao

sandsjames
01-13-2015, 06:40 PM
I agree wholeheartedly. What I was attempting to get at was that the AF doesn't have anything in writing about shaving every day.

You're absolutely right. The reason for this is there may be someone who doesn't need to shave every day. I've known several baby faced airmen who could go 3 or 4 days without it and still be in regs. Wouldn't make much sense to say that you HAVE to shave everyday, if you don't need to.

SomeRandomGuy
01-13-2015, 06:45 PM
You're absolutely right. The reason for this is there may be someone who doesn't need to shave every day. I've known several baby faced airmen who could go 3 or 4 days without it and still be in regs. Wouldn't make much sense to say that you HAVE to shave everyday, if you don't need to.

Or someone really hardcore could get laser hair removal and never have to shave again.

sandsjames
01-13-2015, 07:01 PM
Or someone really hardcore could get laser hair removal and never have to shave again.

Yep. Same reason that there is no reg that says you MUST get your hair cut every 2 weeks. Some people need to, some people don't. As long as they stay in regs, it doesn't matter.

garhkal
01-13-2015, 09:55 PM
Interesting. So, If you require a waiver not to shave, then isn't it implied? I think recruits should stop making their beds. It's just gonna get messed up at night anyway.


To me if you require a waiver to NOT do something, then by logic, it must mean its normally required.

Capt Alfredo
01-13-2015, 10:04 PM
You mean like Vietnam, OEF, OIF???.... You have to have an end goal identified and pursue the goal with the end in mind.

Purpose of Strict Grooming standards is to support good order and discipline and teach attention to small details, to allow you to focus on more important matters.

Again what's wrong with the current standard? Other than one black girl wanting to be able to wear corn rows, and refusing to comply with standards when called out on it.

We all know what this "review" is really about.

Since ultimately we did not have success in the wars you cited (at best we came to a military stalemate; at worst things are worse now than they were before), I guess those precious standards didn't serve us very well. Or maybe the military instrument of power was the wrong one or it was misapplied by the civilian masters. All I'm saying here is that doing things a certain way because that's the way we always did them is not a solid reason. If the underlying motivation is no longer operative, don't be afraid to change things that no longer make sense.

USN - Retired
01-13-2015, 10:32 PM
Perhaps the government should convert the entire Navy boot camp course into an online course. The government could save lots of money.

BURAWSKI
01-13-2015, 10:44 PM
Perhaps the government should convert the entire Navy boot camp course into an online course. The government could save lots of money.

Don't laugh, I am sure some focus group or one of those executive steering committees will propose something along those lines eventually. It seems to me that is the way things are going.

Mjölnir
01-13-2015, 11:28 PM
Interesting. So, If you require a waiver not to shave, then isn't it implied? I think recruits should stop making their beds. It's just gonna get messed up at night anyway.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxBQLFLei70

If you haven't already seen this speech it's worth a watch. at about 4:08. this man tells a thing or two about the value of standards

Great video, and ADM McRaven makes an excellent point about standards.

Now the issue of the female Sailor who got separated for refusing to modify her hairstyle, a hairstyle that she had worn for several years and not been corrected on. Now, I fault her for once being told to correct herself not doing it, but I would be interested in looking at why none of her leadership corrected her for all those years? Were they also unaware of the proper ways she could wear her hair? Did they not care? Were they concerned they would be regarded as culturally insensitive if they instructed her to change it? But, overall I would (as a military professional) ask: Where was her leadership for all those years?

What I think is in part getting muddled in this conversation is that throwing out grooming standards is not the proposal nor the intent. The proposal is to have recruits and candidates conform to the grooming standard, without shaving their head. Again I say: if shaving a male's head an training day one accomplishes a goal then do it, but if it doesn't ... then why do it? The answer seems to be "because that is how we have always done it." And on that issue I would agree with Capt Alfredo:


All I'm saying here is that doing things a certain way because that's the way we always did them is not a solid reason. If the underlying motivation is no longer operative, don't be afraid to change things that no longer make sense.


I would much rather we teach recruits how to be Sailors (how to conform to grooming standards) than taking the responsibility to conform to standards out of their hands with a quick haircut.

A bit of looking at the issue and you will see that one of the impetus' of the proposal was a discussion on the psychology of if the haircut does actually modify mentality and breaking down individuality, it wasn't the result of a survey or a complaint. If you are prone to jump to that conclusion without any fact, you are probably predicated to be the kind of person who thinks the military has done nothing but gone soft -- which is in many ways a subjective argument at best -- I just listened to a Marine Cpl last night talking about how he is not inclined to stay in the "peace-time Marine Corps" (granted, I asked him and he has not deployed either) and sounded like he was talking out of his ass. The standards are still there & they should be there -- Most will meet them, some will exceed them and some will fall short.

Rainmaker
01-14-2015, 06:40 PM
Perhaps the government should convert the entire Navy boot camp course into an online course. The government could save lots of money.

Calling all Nappy headed Hoes.....

THEY WANT YOU, THEY WANT YOU, THEY WANT YOU AS A NEW RECRUIT....
But, but, but, I'm afraid of water....
Hey, hey look....
Man, I get seasick even watchin' it on the TV!!!!
THEY WANT YOU, THEY WANT YOU, IN THE NAVY....
Oh my goodness.
What am I gonna do in a submarine?
IN THE NAVY....YOU CAN SAIL THE 7 SEAS.....IN THE NAVY...

sandsjames
01-14-2015, 06:44 PM
The thing that you are missing is that, even though these people are in the military, they also have personal lives as well. A man with short hair is no biggy. A woman with a shaved head, off duty, is at a pretty severe disadvantage when it comes to having a normal life.

sandsjames
01-14-2015, 06:49 PM
Great video, and ADM McRaven makes an excellent point about standards.

Now the issue of the female Sailor who got separated for refusing to modify her hairstyle, a hairstyle that she had worn for several years and not been corrected on. Now, I fault her for once being told to correct herself not doing it, but I would be interested in looking at why none of her leadership corrected her for all those years? Were they also unaware of the proper ways she could wear her hair? Did they not care? Were they concerned they would be regarded as culturally insensitive if they instructed her to change it? But, overall I would (as a military professional) ask: Where was her leadership for all those years?

What I think is in part getting muddled in this conversation is that throwing out grooming standards is not the proposal nor the intent. The proposal is to have recruits and candidates conform to the grooming standard, without shaving their head. Again I say: if shaving a male's head an training day one accomplishes a goal then do it, but if it doesn't ... then why do it? The answer seems to be "because that is how we have always done it." And on that issue I would agree with Capt Alfredo:




I would much rather we teach recruits how to be Sailors (how to conform to grooming standards) than taking the responsibility to conform to standards out of their hands with a quick haircut.

A bit of looking at the issue and you will see that one of the impetus' of the proposal was a discussion on the psychology of if the haircut does actually modify mentality and breaking down individuality, it wasn't the result of a survey or a complaint. If you are prone to jump to that conclusion without any fact, you are probably predicated to be the kind of person who thinks the military has done nothing but gone soft -- which is in many ways a subjective argument at best -- I just listened to a Marine Cpl last night talking about how he is not inclined to stay in the "peace-time Marine Corps" (granted, I asked him and he has not deployed either) and sounded like he was talking out of his ass. The standards are still there & they should be there -- Most will meet them, some will exceed them and some will fall short.

I'm not sure how much time people in Navy boot camp have to run to the barber. I know that we didn't have the time to do so. Much easier to take us all there every 2 weeks to get a shave (and every to weeks it was left a bit longer).

So you have a barracks of 40 guys. One guy's hair grows fast, the other's does not. So guy #1 needs a haircut after 6 days to stay in regs. Guy #2 can go 3 weeks. Do you just let guy #1 head to the barber whenever he feels the need in order to stay in regs? It just doesn't make sense logistically in a basic training environment.

Women can put their's up to keep it within their regs. Simple. Guys can't have it touch ears. So take everyone to the barber on the same day and get it taken care of.

Rainmaker
01-14-2015, 07:38 PM
I'm not sure how much time people in Navy boot camp have to run to the barber. I know that we didn't have the time to do so. Much easier to take us all there every 2 weeks to get a shave (and every to weeks it was left a bit longer).

So you have a barracks of 40 guys. One guy's hair grows fast, the other's does not. So guy #1 needs a haircut after 6 days to stay in regs. Guy #2 can go 3 weeks. Do you just let guy #1 head to the barber whenever he feels the need in order to stay in regs? It just doesn't make sense logistically in a basic training environment.

Women can put their's up to keep it within their regs. Simple. Guys can't have it touch ears. So take everyone to the barber on the same day and get it taken care of.

Well apparently they have to time to talk on cell phones so, the antiquated idea of getting recruits conditioned to instinctive obedience and following orders is no longer really a military necessity .

Also, as an offering to the Diversity God, They have Changed the term “dreadlocks” to “locs", and gotten rid of the evil words "matted and unkempt" which were obviously racist profiling.

Rainmaker
01-14-2015, 07:48 PM
Since ultimately we did not have success in the wars you cited (at best we came to a military stalemate; at worst things are worse now than they were before), I guess those precious standards didn't serve us very well. Or maybe the military instrument of power was the wrong one or it was misapplied by the civilian masters. All I'm saying here is that doing things a certain way because that's the way we always did them is not a solid reason. If the underlying motivation is no longer operative, don't be afraid to change things that no longer make sense.

Why do you say it no longer makes sense?

sandsjames
01-14-2015, 08:22 PM
Since ultimately we did not have success in the wars you cited (at best we came to a military stalemate; at worst things are worse now than they were before), I guess those precious standards didn't serve us very well. Or maybe the military instrument of power was the wrong one or it was misapplied by the civilian masters. All I'm saying here is that doing things a certain way because that's the way we always did them is not a solid reason. If the underlying motivation is no longer operative, don't be afraid to change things that no longer make sense.

So would you suggest that all recruits are allowed to go get their hair cut whenever necessary to keep it within the normal standards? Billy can go on Tuesday and Timmy can go the following Thursday? Can you not see the benefit of having everyone there on the same day, cutting it to the same length, in order to quickly move people through the line?

I'd be interested to know what the alternative is. I guess we can give 400 basic trainees (or however many go through at a time) an hour to get their hair cut however they'd like to.

Capt Alfredo
01-14-2015, 10:00 PM
So would you suggest that all recruits are allowed to go get their hair cut whenever necessary to keep it within the normal standards? Billy can go on Tuesday and Timmy can go the following Thursday? Can you not see the benefit of having everyone there on the same day, cutting it to the same length, in order to quickly move people through the line?

I'd be interested to know what the alternative is. I guess we can give 400 basic trainees (or however many go through at a time) an hour to get their hair cut however they'd like to.

Somehow that managed to work at Officer Training School. I also went through enlisted Basic Training and I remember having tons of time sitting around shining boots or hurrying up to wait. There is plenty of time for people to get a haircut once a week.

Capt Alfredo
01-14-2015, 10:02 PM
Why do you say it no longer makes sense?


I said "if." No one has convinced me that it does. If women can somehow manage to make it through basic training without having their locks shorn (and you may very well disagree with that), then it would make sense the same would apply to men.

Mjölnir
01-14-2015, 10:21 PM
I'm not sure how much time people in Navy boot camp have to run to the barber. I know that we didn't have the time to do so. Much easier to take us all there every 2 weeks to get a shave (and every to weeks it was left a bit longer).

So you have a barracks of 40 guys. One guy's hair grows fast, the other's does not. So guy #1 needs a haircut after 6 days to stay in regs. Guy #2 can go 3 weeks. Do you just let guy #1 head to the barber whenever he feels the need in order to stay in regs? It just doesn't make sense logistically in a basic training environment.

Women can put their's up to keep it within their regs. Simple. Guys can't have it touch ears. So take everyone to the barber on the same day and get it taken care of.

That is one of the better points made for the head shaving. I wouldn't suggest that it be left up to recruits to get their hair cut on their time, but a once a week or once every two weeks block on the training schedule to maintain seems reasonable -- they go down there, tell the barber what to do and as long as it is within standards good to go. I would imagine a time block for haircuts already exists on the training schedule.

When I went to USMC Boot Camp, we got our heads shaved on T-1, and every week we went back and got hair cuts -- need it or not. I will admit, paying the $4.00 to get my hair cut a week after getting my head shaved seemed useless ... but we still did it.

sandsjames
01-14-2015, 11:54 PM
That is one of the better points made for the head shaving. I wouldn't suggest that it be left up to recruits to get their hair cut on their time, but a once a week or once every two weeks block on the training schedule to maintain seems reasonable -- they go down there, tell the barber what to do and as long as it is within standards good to go. I would imagine a time block for haircuts already exists on the training schedule.

When I went to USMC Boot Camp, we got our heads shaved on T-1, and every week we went back and got hair cuts -- need it or not. I will admit, paying the $4.00 to get my hair cut a week after getting my head shaved seemed useless ... but we still did it.

It takes about 2-3 minutes to do a buzz cut. It takes 15-20 minutes to do a regular hair cut. So now you've added, at a minimum, 10-15 minutes per recruit. That's a lot of time when you figure the total time added for every single trainee.

sandsjames
01-14-2015, 11:54 PM
Somehow that managed to work at Officer Training School. And there you have it...

sandsjames
01-15-2015, 12:00 AM
By applying "equality" standards, we can point out the illogic of doing things "the way we always did" for a reason that no longer exists.And this makes sense. As an officer, you see it as "if it ain't broke, try to fix it anyway". Sometimes, there's nothing wrong with "the way we always did" things. If only O's could see that before trying to overhaul the squadron.

Rollyn01
01-15-2015, 12:10 AM
And this makes sense. As an officer, you see it as "if it ain't broke, try to fix it anyway". Sometimes, there's nothing wrong with "the way we always did" things. If only O's could see that before trying to overhaul the squadron.

At best, wishful thinking. At worst, the sad reality. :(

Mjölnir
01-15-2015, 12:13 AM
It takes about 2-3 minutes to do a buzz cut. It takes 15-20 minutes to do a regular hair cut. So now you've added, at a minimum, 10-15 minutes per recruit. That's a lot of time when you figure the total time added for every single trainee.

Agreed, it would take longer than a quick high and tight etc.

Mjölnir
01-15-2015, 12:37 AM
And this makes sense. As an officer, you see it as "if it ain't broke, try to fix it anyway". Sometimes, there's nothing wrong with "the way we always did" things. If only O's could see that before trying to overhaul the squadron.

There is a difference between "if it ain't broke, try to fix it anyway" and "let's see if this is still working as intended" which is where I think the Navy is on the issue -- pilot program, see how it works, look at if it needs to be implemented as the norm.

As was said, the intent is that the haircut is a shedding of personal identity and assimilation into the collective team. But, it is legit to ask "does it really serve that purpose?", if it doesn't why keep doing it? You brought up a good point -- that it is faster than everyone getting a regular haircut. Sure we could double the time the haircuts take every week, does something have to be cut as a result? If so, what? What is gained & what is lost. Nothing wrong with asking the questions, even conducing a pilot program to check it out. What is bad practice is to reject asking those questions because (institutionally) we should periodically be reviewing process, procedures etc. to validate that these things work as intended otherwise we end up doing something simply because “that is how we have always done it.” … which isn’t good either.

sandsjames
01-15-2015, 11:54 AM
If so, what? What is gained & what is lost. Nothing wrong with asking the questions, even conducing a pilot program to check it out.

I hope the question is also asked "What is gained by not shaving their heads?" Just because nothing may be gained or lost by doing one thing doesn't necessarily mean that something is gained by NOT doing it.

"What is gained by not shaving heads in basic training" needs to be the first question. Then, if something tangible is gained, weigh the positives against the negatives. Unfortunately, the military will do it the other way around..."What is lost by not shaving heads/gained by shaving heads?" When the answer is "nothing" a change will be made, even though there is no added benefit to doing it the other way.

To argue that it will give them "practice" for staying within standards once they are operational is ridiculous.

Rainmaker
01-15-2015, 01:49 PM
I hope the question is also asked "What is gained by not shaving their heads?" Just because nothing may be gained or lost by doing one thing doesn't necessarily mean that something is gained by NOT doing it.

"What is gained by not shaving heads in basic training" needs to be the first question. Then, if something tangible is gained, weigh the positives against the negatives. Unfortunately, the military will do it the other way around..."What is lost by not shaving heads/gained by shaving heads?" When the answer is "nothing" a change will be made, even though there is no added benefit to doing it the other way.

To argue that it will give them "practice" for staying within standards once they are operational is ridiculous.

This 3 month "pilot program" (which is no doubt pre ordained to be an overwhelming success) has nothing to do with what's best or necessary.

The Navy's stated reason given about sailors not knowing the regulation is just a BS excuse.

BLACK WOMEN DEMAND TO BE AUTHORIZED TO WEAR THEIR CORN ROWS DAMN IT!!!!!

So, In order to make them happy and make sure they won't cry racist and a couple fairy men won't cry "unfair", the girls running the DoD have to relax the male grooming standards too. That's all this is about. The liberal good idea fairy always erodes standards.

Salty Old Dog
01-15-2015, 02:59 PM
So, to make a long story short?

The haircut was part of training that was used to break everyone free of their civilian thoughts.

The way it was explained to us, when I went through Navy basic in 1980, is that the shaved head accomplishes 2 things:
1. it made us all equal. Everyone had the same hair style, the same clothes, the same everything. This allows them (as you said) to get us out of thinking as civilians, as individuals, and start thinking as a group. Everything rotated around that. EVERYTHING. If we were out on the grinder, learning how to march, and someone f***ed up, they'd be punished....but if the group f***ed up, we'd all drop and do pushups, as a group. Makes you appreciate your fellow recruit, what they do for you, and what you're doing for them, and learn to work together.
2. it also made it easier for the Navy Corpsmen to look for, at treat, people with head lice. :rolleyes:

sandsjames
01-15-2015, 03:23 PM
The way it was explained to us, when I went through Navy basic in 1980, is that the shaved head accomplishes 2 things:
1. it made us all equal. Everyone had the same hair style, the same clothes, the same everything. This allows them (as you said) to get us out of thinking as civilians, as individuals, and start thinking as a group. Everything rotated around that. EVERYTHING. If we were out on the grinder, learning how to march, and someone f***ed up, they'd be punished....but if the group f***ed up, we'd all drop and do pushups, as a group. Makes you appreciate your fellow recruit, what they do for you, and what you're doing for them, and learn to work together.
2. it also made it easier for the Navy Corpsmen to look for, at treat, people with head lice. :rolleyes:

The problem with that explanation is that it doesn't explain women being allowed to keep their hair (which I have no problem with, BTW).

Rainmaker
01-15-2015, 03:36 PM
The problem with that explanation is that it doesn't explain women being allowed to keep their hair (which I have no problem with, BTW).

If you shaved women's heads you wouldn't be able to meet the service quotas for female recruitment.

Having a Diverse Military were at least 20% of the population is menstruating or at risk of becoming pregnant on deployment is critical to National Security

Also, The Lesbians running our country want their women to look pretty. Girl Power!

SomeRandomGuy
01-15-2015, 03:37 PM
The problem with that explanation is that it doesn't explain women being allowed to keep their hair (which I have no problem with, BTW).

Why stop at haircuts? When I went to Air Force Basic training in 2010 they wouldn't let males keep their own underwear. The males were issued tighty whiteys that we had to wear. They didn't let us choose what we wanted to wear. Females are expected to bring six of their own bras and six sets of underwear. Why do females get to choose but males don't? I think this is the type of thing CaptAlfredo thinks we should look at. Why does it matter what underwear I am wearing? Obviously, there is no reason everyone has to have the same kind so why make the rules different for males/females? What purpose does it serve?

http://www.basictraining.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet_print.asp?fsID=15720&page=1

sandsjames
01-15-2015, 04:19 PM
If you shaved women's heads you wouldn't be able to meet the service quotas for female recruitment.

Having a Diverse Military were at least 20% of the population is menstruating or at risk of becoming pregnant on deployment is critical to National Security

Also, The Lesbians running our country want their women to look pretty. Girl Power!

I realize that...and I agree. The point I'm making is that the lice and "everyone looking the same" argument doesn't hold water because it's not required of females.

sandsjames
01-15-2015, 04:27 PM
Obviously, there is no reason everyone has to have the same kind so why make the rules different for males/females? What purpose does it serve?

I have no idea, but why does it matter? Men and women are different. I know it's very difficult for my wife to find a bra that fits her properly...I can imagine how difficult it would to find the right fit with "military issued" bras. Maybe they've deemed that tighty whiteys are safer/more supportive for men. Honesty, I don't know, nor do I care.

This all doesn't surprise me, though, as everyone needs the perception of things being "fair".

Rainmaker
01-15-2015, 04:43 PM
I realize that...and I agree. The point I'm making is that the lice and "everyone looking the same" argument doesn't hold water because it's not required of females.

We agree on that and Rainmaker's not arguing for everybody looking the same. Male and female "Sameness" is a progressive egalitarian pipe dream, equality can only be achieved in the military through erosion of standards. (See female Marines struggling to do just 3 pull ups) after months of training less than 45% can even do that minimal amount. They are genetically different. Our Military has been taken over by brainwashed zealots, and care not about right and wrong or military readiness they only care about the utopian communist agenda they call modern Liberalism.

Rainmaker
01-15-2015, 04:56 PM
Since, we went off the gold standard The only thing backing the petro-dollar as the world's currency reserve has been the strength of the US Military.....

Thanks to a numerically small clique of power lusting conspirators who have somehow inflicted themselves on a gullible world, we are $18Trillion in debt and that is going to be unwound, at a time of their choosing (default)....

In order for that to happen, The greatest fighting force ever assembled, must first be weakened, to a shell of its former self.....

That is what we are currently witnessing (with the handing over of our country to these communist ideologues who call themselves progressives) is the destruction of the values of Western Christendom, on which this Republic was founded.....

Since, the Flag Officers in the US Military and Senior Civilians at the Defense Department are either unable or unwilling to speak out, It is the duty of every former Military member who has sworn an oath to speak out and resist this immoral destruction on behalf of our sons and daughters who currently wear the uniform...... Rainmaker Out Bitches//

BURAWSKI
01-15-2015, 06:48 PM
The military isn't a democracy or a Fortune 500 Company, but is pointing in that direction. Too many focus groups, too many changes period. I have seen a lot of people make changes just to be able to fill out their brag sheet, regardless of whether the changes were necessary or needed. That is the point I think a lot of people are trying to make. Either way, the military is in for a mighty rough ride. Sure it is great to be optimistic, but looking at everything realistically can be depressing too. And I don't own rose-colored glasses.

sandsjames
01-15-2015, 07:19 PM
The military isn't a democracy or a Fortune 500 Company, but is pointing in that direction. Too many focus groups, too many changes period. This isn't new. I can remember when I first joined in the early 90s they were implementing "TQM" (Total Quality Management), which has seen several variations throughout the years. That was the first "focus group" type thing I dealt with. I don't know if there were similar things prior. That's just the AF though...don't know if the other services were doing likewise.

efmbman
01-15-2015, 07:26 PM
Either way, the military is in for a mighty rough ride.

If have a feeling it will result in a catastrophic defeat on some battlefield.


This isn't new. I can remember when I first joined in the early 90s they were implementing "TQM" (Total Quality Management), which has seen several variations throughout the years. That was the first "focus group" type thing I dealt with. I don't know if there were similar things prior. That's just the AF though...don't know if the other services were doing likewise.

We were in the Army. I joined in 1990.

Capt Alfredo
01-16-2015, 02:41 AM
Why stop at haircuts? When I went to Air Force Basic training in 2010 they wouldn't let males keep their own underwear. The males were issued tighty whiteys that we had to wear. They didn't let us choose what we wanted to wear. Females are expected to bring six of their own bras and six sets of underwear. Why do females get to choose but males don't? I think this is the type of thing CaptAlfredo thinks we should look at. Why does it matter what underwear I am wearing? Obviously, there is no reason everyone has to have the same kind so why make the rules different for males/females? What purpose does it serve?

http://www.basictraining.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet_print.asp?fsID=15720&page=1

You might be trying to be funny or make a sly jab, but you know what? You're right. Why does it matter? Why have separate rules there? You could issue all the women granny panties, but for some reason they don't. Hmm...

Capt Alfredo
01-16-2015, 02:46 AM
I hope the question is also asked "What is gained by not shaving their heads?" Just because nothing may be gained or lost by doing one thing doesn't necessarily mean that something is gained by NOT doing it.

"What is gained by not shaving heads in basic training" needs to be the first question. Then, if something tangible is gained, weigh the positives against the negatives. Unfortunately, the military will do it the other way around..."What is lost by not shaving heads/gained by shaving heads?" When the answer is "nothing" a change will be made, even though there is no added benefit to doing it the other way.

To argue that it will give them "practice" for staying within standards once they are operational is ridiculous.


This post makes no logical sense. If nothing is lost, then nothing was gained, either. Your defense of "doing things the way we always did them" makes no logical sense. If shaving heads brought no benefit, then let's stop doing stupid shit! If it does bring something positive, then it should be applied to all service members, not just some.

technomage1
01-16-2015, 04:17 AM
12 pages of complaining because men have to have their heads shaved and women don't? Also differnt PT standards and women get their own underwear in Basic.

Boys are differnt than girls. It's socially acceptable for men to have shaved heads. Women who do are called butch dykes. As far as fit scores - it's designed to measure fitness, which will vary due to gender and age. Job requirements - such as the post office requiring lifting 40 lbs above your head - do not vary. As far as the underwear, it's my understanding it was tried but there was a large proportion of yeast infections and other female issues. Men don't have that issue.

Are we going to require men to carry purses and shave their legs because the females have to?

Where it matters - job performance - we do not and should not vary standards. But recognizing gender and age differences in appearance and overall fitness just makes sense.

As far as shaving of the heads - not something to be enjoyed but it won't kill anybody.

TJMAC77SP
01-16-2015, 04:23 AM
This post makes no logical sense. If nothing is lost, then nothing was gained, either. Your defense of "doing things the way we always did them" makes no logical sense. If shaving heads brought no benefit, then let's stop doing stupid shit! If it does bring something positive, then it should be applied to all service members, not just some.

His post makes as much and on some level, more sense than yours. He was simply saying that there is no real negative issue with shaving the males heads. It is a manufactured problem. Why not ask the question from the other viewpoint. Instead of 'why do it?', the question could be 'why stop doing it'? The benefits of shaving the heads has been enumerated here (even dismissing the out-of-date lice issue). You may not like or agree with the benefit but you can't then expect anyone to simply accept your premise.

Surely you see the potential downside in applying this "for one, for all" silliness. I realize you have taken a position but at this point it seems quite evident that you are simply ignoring the true logic (or lack of it) in this silly thread.

Capt Alfredo
01-16-2015, 04:32 AM
His post makes as much and on some level, more sense than yours. He was simply saying that there is no real negative issue with shaving the males heads. It is a manufactured problem. Why not ask the question from the other viewpoint. Instead of 'why do it?', the question could be 'why stop doing it'? The benefits of shaving the heads has been enumerated here (even dismissing the out-of-date lice issue). You may not like or agree with the benefit but you can't then expect anyone to simply accept your premise.

Surely you see the potential downside in applying this "for one, for all" silliness. I realize you have taken a position but at this point it seems quite evident that you are simply ignoring the true logic (or lack of it) in this silly thread.

I get what you're saying and I'm really using this particular issue as an example representative of "let's do things the way we always did" camp. So many people cling to old ways for no particular reason and can't really articulate why. There were some explanations given for the original motivations behind shaving the heads but those reasons apparently have proven inoperative or less than universal in their applicability. So why keep doing it?

Capt Alfredo
01-16-2015, 04:33 AM
12 pages of complaining because men have to have their heads shaved and women don't? Also differnt PT standards and women get their own underwear in Basic.

Boys are differnt than girls. It's socially acceptable for men to have shaved heads. Women who do are called butch dykes. As far as fit scores - it's designed to measure fitness, which will vary due to gender and age. Job requirements - such as the post office requiring lifting 40 lbs above your head - do not vary. As far as the underwear, it's my understanding it was tried but there was a large proportion of yeast infections and other female issues. Men don't have that issue.

Are we going to require men to carry purses and shave their legs because the females have to?

Where it matters - job performance - we do not and should not vary standards. But recognizing gender and age differences in appearance and overall fitness just makes sense.

As far as shaving of the heads - not something to be enjoyed but it won't kill anybody.

Doesn't kill anyone, but what does it do? Why are we doing things that have no value?

technomage1
01-16-2015, 08:53 AM
Doesn't kill anyone, but what does it do? Why are we doing things that have no value?

Sounds like an A1C question, to which the answer should be, "because I said so".

The answer (to assist them with the transition to military life) has been provided many times in this thread. Heck, why even have basic? Why march, salute, or wear a uniform?

Ultimately we do so because that is a condition of employment. And frankly, one not worth arguing about. If you can't follow a simple set of instructions then you can't make it in the military. And that's not my opinion. That's what a technical order is.

sandsjames
01-16-2015, 10:13 AM
This post makes no logical sense. If nothing is lost, then nothing was gained, either. Your defense of "doing things the way we always did them" makes no logical sense. If shaving heads brought no benefit, then let's stop doing stupid shit! If it does bring something positive, then it should be applied to all service members, not just some.Wrong. If the change brings something positive, then the change is good. But if the change doesn't bring anything positive, even if the "old way" doesn't bring anything positive, then it's pointless to change. What they need to do is come up with a reason not shaving heads is BETTER than shaving heads.

Can you give an advantage of letting them grow their hair longer (within standards)? I can't.

sandsjames
01-16-2015, 10:16 AM
Doesn't kill anyone, but what does it do? Why are we doing things that have no value?

What value does doing it the other way have???

I have always put my left shoe on first. It doesn't really serve any purpose, nor does it have any benefit. That does not mean that I should start putting my right shoe on first just because I've "always done it" the other way.

But I can see your reasoning for doing it. It would be something like this...

"Designed and implemented the 'RIGHT SHOE FIRST' program".

Rollyn01
01-16-2015, 10:55 AM
12 pages of complaining because men have to have their heads shaved and women don't? Also differnt PT standards and women get their own underwear in Basic.

Boys are differnt than girls. It's socially acceptable for men to have shaved heads. Women who do are called butch dykes. As far as fit scores - it's designed to measure fitness, which will vary due to gender and age. Job requirements - such as the post office requiring lifting 40 lbs above your head - do not vary. As far as the underwear, it's my understanding it was tried but there was a large proportion of yeast infections and other female issues. Men don't have that issue.

Are we going to require men to carry purses and shave their legs because the females have to?

Where it matters - job performance - we do not and should not vary standards. But recognizing gender and age differences in appearance and overall fitness just makes sense.

As far as shaving of the heads - not something to be enjoyed but it won't kill anybody.

Thank you for bring a touch of sanity in the debate... high-five?

Capt Alfredo
01-16-2015, 11:51 AM
Sounds like an A1C question, to which the answer should be, "because I said so".

The answer (to assist them with the transition to military life) has been provided many times in this thread. Heck, why even have basic? Why march, salute, or wear a uniform?

Ultimately we do so because that is a condition of employment. And frankly, one not worth arguing about. If you can't follow a simple set of instructions then you can't make it in the military. And that's not my opinion. That's what a technical order is.

We've not established that the "help them transition to military life" rationale is valid. If it were, we would make women do the same. Since they don't and presumably they transition to military life just fine, it's a valid question to ask what is the value added of doing this. Do I honestly give a damn if the Navy shaves its male recruits bald? Of course not. But it is indicative. I'm speaking in the bigger picture here, not just about shaving heads.

Capt Alfredo
01-16-2015, 11:53 AM
What value does doing it the other way have???

I have always put my left shoe on first. It doesn't really serve any purpose, nor does it have any benefit. That does not mean that I should start putting my right shoe on first just because I've "always done it" the other way.

But I can see your reasoning for doing it. It would be something like this...

"Designed and implemented the 'RIGHT SHOE FIRST' program".

You don't know one thing about me and how I do business, but you go on thinking you do and making your assumptions. I wouldn't make you put on your right shoe first...but...I wouldn't make everyone put on their left first just because that's the way YOU always did it.

sandsjames
01-16-2015, 12:26 PM
You don't know one thing about me and how I do business, but you go on thinking you do and making your assumptions. Very weak...

What happens in these situation is that a specific shop has programs and a way of doing things. It works. Everyone is trained on what they are supposed to do and the job is getting done efficiently. Then, a new officer comes into the squadron. Before much time passes, a "think-tank" is assembled (which wastes everyone's time) to figure out a better process. Over time, new procedures are implemented. This requires more time wasted on training, briefing, updating, etc. In the end, the process is no better than it was in the first place. It's different...it LOOKS fresh...but the results are the same, just with more inconveniences to get to that point.


I wouldn't make you put on your right shoe first...but...I wouldn't make everyone put on their left first just because that's the way YOU always did it.When comparing this to haircuts, it's not just ME putting the left shoe on first. It's EVERYONE. Nice attempt, though.

TJMAC77SP
01-16-2015, 12:29 PM
We've not established that the "help them transition to military life" rationale is valid. If it were, we would make women do the same. Since they don't and presumably they transition to military life just fine, it's a valid question to ask what is the value added of doing this. Do I honestly give a damn if the Navy shaves its male recruits bald? Of course not. But it is indicative. I'm speaking in the bigger picture here, not just about shaving heads.

Actually what we know is that women transition. What we don't 'know' is what measures are taken to assimilate them in lieu of shaving their heads. We don't 'know' the comparative failure rates between men and women. By 'know' in this case I mean we haven't done a proper comparison here.

Let's look at this from your standpoint. Why to we teach drill and ceremonies? Close order drill in no way contributes to the mission of the military. It is necessary for parades and such but that is hardly a mission of the military, merely a 'by-product' sort of thing and actually a left over from the days when that is actually how armies moved on the battlefield. Certainly not applicable to today's military.

Mjölnir
01-16-2015, 01:34 PM
Let's look at this from your standpoint. Why to we teach drill and ceremonies? Close order drill in no way contributes to the mission of the military. It is necessary for parades and such but that is hardly a mission of the military, merely a 'by-product' sort of thing and actually a left over from the days when that is actually how armies moved on the battlefield. Certainly not applicable to today's military.

Maybe not for the Air Force, but there are reasons:


PURPOSES OF CLOSE ORDER DRILL.
a. Move units from one place to another in a standard, orderly manner.

b. Provide simple formations from which combat formations may be readily assumed.

c. Teach discipline by instilling habits of precision and automatic response to orders.

d. Increase the confidence of junior officers and non-commissioned officers through the exercise of command,
by the giving of proper commands, and by the control of drilling troops.

e. Give troops an opportunity to handle individual weapons

TJMAC77SP
01-16-2015, 02:40 PM
Maybe not for the Air Force, but there are reasons:


PURPOSES OF CLOSE ORDER DRILL.
a. Move units from one place to another in a standard, orderly manner.

b. Provide simple formations from which combat formations may be readily assumed.

c. Teach discipline by instilling habits of precision and automatic response to orders.

d. Increase the confidence of junior officers and non-commissioned officers through the exercise of command,
by the giving of proper commands, and by the control of drilling troops.

e. Give troops an opportunity to handle individual weapons

I probably should have been more obvious with my rhetorical question. I am well aware of the ancillary benefits of close order drill, although I would say that many of your points rate up there with the 'lice avoidance' reasons. Tactical training alone would fulfill all of the objectives you mentioned and much more efficiently in this day an age. So why use old and out of date techniques? Because they work perhaps.

I support the use of drill as a building block much as I support the shaving of heads to reach an ancillary goal.

Rollyn01
01-16-2015, 03:07 PM
Maybe not for the Air Force, but there are reasons:


PURPOSES OF CLOSE ORDER DRILL.
a. Move units from one place to another in a standard, orderly manner.

b. Provide simple formations from which combat formations may be readily assumed.

c. Teach discipline by instilling habits of precision and automatic response to orders.

d. Increase the confidence of junior officers and non-commissioned officers through the exercise of command,
by the giving of proper commands, and by the control of drilling troops.

e. Give troops an opportunity to handle individual weapons

Actual, it is my understanding that does apply to the Air Force as well. Many of their flying formations are basic on some of the formations that are done while marching (wedge, file, etc.), lest we not forget where the AF came from anyway. Thus, D&C is just a build up to maintain command and control of such formations so that it's easier to explore other. A pincer/diversionary attack is just a large-scale version of "I cover, you move." At least, that's suppose to be what it is.

sandsjames
01-16-2015, 03:16 PM
Maybe not for the Air Force, but there are reasons:


PURPOSES OF CLOSE ORDER DRILL.
a. Move units from one place to another in a standard, orderly manner.

b. Provide simple formations from which combat formations may be readily assumed.

c. Teach discipline by instilling habits of precision and automatic response to orders.

d. Increase the confidence of junior officers and non-commissioned officers through the exercise of command,
by the giving of proper commands, and by the control of drilling troops.

e. Give troops an opportunity to handle individual weapons

When is the last time any of our military force was in battle utilizing any of the formations remotely resembling a formation taught in CLOSE ORDER DRILL? Revolutionary War? Civil War maybe? As a matter of fact, moving in formations during combat was one of the major reason the British got their asses kicked during the Revolutionary War. As TJ mentioned, tactical training would be more than sufficient. Beyond that, it's a teaching tool for other purposes.

Mjölnir
01-16-2015, 04:47 PM
When is the last time any of our military force was in battle utilizing any of the formations remotely resembling a formation taught in CLOSE ORDER DRILL? Revolutionary War? Civil War maybe? As a matter of fact, moving in formations during combat was one of the major reason the British got their asses kicked during the Revolutionary War. As TJ mentioned, tactical training would be more than sufficient. Beyond that, it's a teaching tool for other purposes.

Iraq ... I ordered a group of Marines to set up two lines, in column facing outboard off my position.

No, it isn't classic giant formation moving against giant formation ... but the terms are all out of the drill manual, and the Marines in the Squad did exactly as told.

sandsjames
01-16-2015, 04:55 PM
Iraq ... I ordered a group of Marines to set up two lines, in column facing outboard off my position.

No, it isn't classic giant formation moving against giant formation ... but the terms are all out of the drill manual, and the Marines in the Squad did exactly as told.

I can only speak from an AF point of view. It serves no practical purpose but I wouldn't have it removed from our basic training.

Mjölnir
01-16-2015, 05:01 PM
"Does the head shaving provide a benefit?"
"Does not shaving people's heads provide a benefit?"

If the answers prove to be neutral the point seems to be getting to "why mess with it then?" Stepping a bit back from the micro issue (haircuts) and what seems to be the macro (evaluation and change). My point on that, it that it is the job of leaders to periodically reevaluate if things are working as well as they can be. Just because nothing is broken doesn't mean it could not be done better. In my experience, those who most resist reevaluation - whether of their procedures &/or methods, their qualifications etc. seem to have a reason for the resistance and it is easy and professionally & intellectually lazy to say "this is how I / we have always done it." We - those who want to leave an organization better than they found it - find ways to make things better; granted not every idea ends up improving things, sometimes things improve, sometimes they get worse and sometimes the result is neutral.

I could be just a cog in the machine, not trying to find ways to improve; that just isn't in my nature. Sometimes that improvement is running faster than I have before, lifting more than I have before, scoring better on a course of fire or a test than before. Competition, even against your previous personal best fosters improvement. It is not for a better quote on my eval, or shiny new bling for my shirt but believing that I should make things better; and there is rarely ever a situation that can't find some level of improvement.

Mjölnir
01-16-2015, 05:07 PM
I can only speak from an AF point of view. It serves no practical purpose but I wouldn't have it removed from our basic training.

I have been to a few training schools on Air Force bases where the trainees were moved from the barracks to the schoolhouse by having a student or junior NCO marching them in formation, which would seem to accomplish:

Move units from one place to another in a standard, orderly manner.

Teach discipline by instilling habits of precision and automatic response to orders.

Increase the confidence of junior officers and non-commissioned officers through the exercise of command,
by the giving of proper commands, and by the control of drilling troops.

TJMAC77SP
01-16-2015, 06:09 PM
Iraq ... I ordered a group of Marines to set up two lines, in column facing outboard off my position.

No, it isn't classic giant formation moving against giant formation ... but the terms are all out of the drill manual, and the Marines in the Squad did exactly as told.

You actually learned that (in a tactical application) based on training in small unit tactics. Otherwise your column(s) would have been at Attention, Parade Rest, or At Ease.

Mjölnir
01-16-2015, 06:10 PM
You actually learned that (in a tactical application) based on training in small unit tactics. Otherwise your column(s) would have been at Attention, Parade Rest, or At Ease.

No, that wasn't something I learned as an infantryman ... but about half of the Marines there were not and only had the basic Marine Combat Training, and they knew exactly what I wanted them to do; kind of the point.

TJMAC77SP
01-16-2015, 06:14 PM
I have been to a few training schools on Air Force bases where the trainees were moved from the barracks to the schoolhouse by having a student or junior NCO marching them in formation, which would seem to accomplish:

Move units from one place to another in a standard, orderly manner.

Teach discipline by instilling habits of precision and automatic response to orders.

Increase the confidence of junior officers and non-commissioned officers through the exercise of command,
by the giving of proper commands, and by the control of drilling troops.

Give troops an opportunity to handle individual weapons

You are now hung up on a point that wasn't really being made. I know you can see this.

Close order drill does have beneficial benefits but eliminating it would not cause the mission or training to fail. There are other methods to accomplish both. So again, the basic question being asked remains..............is the change being considered to make a change or to effect a positive outcome. It seems the former in the case of the point of this thread.

Is there also a benefit to keeping a tradition as is merely for that reason?

TJMAC77SP
01-16-2015, 06:24 PM
No, that wasn't something I learned as an infantryman ... but about half of the Marines there were not and only had the basic Marine Combat Training, and they knew exactly what I wanted them to do; kind of the point.

Sorry, BS flag thrown. Column formations are a basic small unit formation. Fireteam wedges, fireteam columns, fireteam echelon. In fact the column is probably most used in urban environments. Doesn't the USMC teach that in Recruit Training? They are all, rifleman first. That is what I have always heard anyway. The Army teaches all in BCT the same tactics. In the AF some AFSCs get that in Tech School. If you had a formation of mixed AF types I would believe you (regardless of drill training)

Of course, I will repeat from my other post, you are hung up on a point not really being made. Seems at this point to be a distraction attempt.

Mjölnir
01-16-2015, 06:26 PM
You are now hung up on a point that wasn't really being made. I know you can see this.


Well, one personsaid there was absolutely no reason for drill. My point was that it is still useful -- even in the Air Force where students are marching to class (it get's them to school and probably helps with the confidence/presence of the person marching them) ... but overall just pointing out that the blanket statement wasn't 100%. And basic combat formations are still formed out of basic drill formations, I have seen this personally ... and I wasn't in during the War for Independence.

As far as is change being considered just to make a change, I will refer to my previous post about reevaluation of procedures, methods etc. What I have gathered is that in the case of the OP, a pilot program is being done to look at how the change would impact (positive and negative) the training environment. I don't disagree with the evaluation of the necessity of the head shaving, times change we shouldn't expect each and every thing that worked as intended when I first came in to still work on a recruit who was born just before I became a SNCO, no more than all things that motivated or worked with me would have worked with someone who went to boot camp in 1970.

TJMAC77SP
01-16-2015, 06:28 PM
Well, two people said there was absolutely no reason for drill. I pointed how how it is still useful, just pointing out that the blanket statement isn't 100%.

As far as is change being considered just to make a change, I will refer to my previous post about reevaluation of procedures, methods etc. What I have gathered is that in the case of the OP, a pilot program is being done to look at how the change would impact (positive and negative) the training environment. I don't disagree with the evaluation of the necessity of the head shaving, times change we shouldn't expect each and every thing that worked as intended when I first came in to still work on a recruit who was born just before I became a SNCO, no more than all things that motivated or worked with me would have worked with someone who went to boot camp in 1970.

Those people said that in reference to you defending the need or to simply support my premise that using the logic of those who dismiss the shaving of male heads as no longer needed is faulty at best.

We aren't discussing each and every thing. One thing in particular.

Mjölnir
01-16-2015, 06:31 PM
Those people said that in reference to you defending the need or to simply support my premise that using the logic of those who dismiss the shaving of male heads as no longer needed is faulty at best.

We aren't discussing each and every thing. One thing in particular.

No, but in part I was stepping back from the one thing -- my larger point being that at least examining the need is good.

I don't think dismissing the need of the head shaving is faulty; at least not until seeing the results of the pilot program. I personally can see reasons to do away with it, and to keep it -- I am against changing it for the sake of changing it and just as equally against keeping it just for the sake of keeping it.

sandsjames
01-16-2015, 08:03 PM
I have been to a few training schools on Air Force bases where the trainees were moved from the barracks to the schoolhouse by having a student or junior NCO marching them in formation, which would seem to accomplish:

Move units from one place to another in a standard, orderly manner.

Teach discipline by instilling habits of precision and automatic response to orders.

Increase the confidence of junior officers and non-commissioned officers through the exercise of command,
by the giving of proper commands, and by the control of drilling troops.

But it doesn't happen past the Tech School level. When we were rarely "formed up" during my active time, the commands were usually something along the lines of "skooch to the left a couple steps".

Again, I don't see a need for it in the active duty Air Force...however...I think is a good thing at the training level (basic/tech school) and even though nothing is really gained by having it, nothing is gained by getting rid of it, either.

TJMAC77SP
01-16-2015, 08:07 PM
But it doesn't happen past the Tech School level. When we were rarely "formed up" during my active time, the commands were usually something along the lines of "skooch to the left a couple steps".

Again, I don't see a need for it in the active duty Air Force...however...I think is a good thing at the training level (basic/tech school) and even though nothing is really gained by having it, nothing is gained by getting rid of it, either.

That is why more time than not a cop wins the Drill award in PME (if they still have that of course)

sandsjames
01-16-2015, 08:20 PM
That is why more time than not a cop wins the Drill award in PME (if they still have that of course)They have removed the marching/drill from NCOA, last I heard. I'm not sure about ALS, but I'd assume they have done so also.

TJMAC77SP
01-16-2015, 08:26 PM
No, but in part I was stepping back from the one thing -- my larger point being that at least examining the need is good.

I don't think dismissing the need of the head shaving is faulty; at least not until seeing the results of the pilot program. I personally can see reasons to do away with it, and to keep it -- I am against changing it for the sake of changing it and just as equally against keeping it just for the sake of keeping it.

Your posts seem to say both which is confusing.

The pilot program is going to measure a fairly intangible thing. I am not a betting man but if I were I would bet that the pilot program 'proves' to be a success.

Most people posting here (myself included) don't really give two shits about whether or not a male recruit gets their head shaved; or that a female recruit doesn't. We are simply tired of people (leadership) attempting to fix what ain't broke while there is a shit ton of stuff in the military that does need to be fixed. I am scared to death picturing the staff hours that went into this study and the hours that will be spent executing it and then studying the results. Oh the Power Point presentations alone are enough to cause an MI.

Someoneraised the issue of TQM. If you study Deming's work and how the Japaneseimplemented it there is obvious genius there. Unfortunately we aren'tJapanese and our execution of it was an abortion. We became (and to alarge extent still are) a metric driven force. TQM became a performancereport bullet statement. Don't have it? Forget about it. Itbecame the 90's equivalent of not stating a member supports the equalopportunity program. Do we need to shave the heads of malerecruits? I don’t know, let’s do a pilotprogram and see. Stupid and pointless. Sorry, I know I am off point here a bit but it is just another indicator of the mindset of failure we have in the military. We have very little true leadership. Not to say that is a universal problem (or even unique to this time period) but it is enough to cause me serious concern.
Alternativelysome staff weenie asks the question and the man/woman in charge asks………whatevidence do we have it isn’t helping train recruits?....................none……………ok,are there any areas for which we have empirical data that shows we couldimprove?...................yes……….ok, there are your marching orders. Now, if the US military wasn’t in the throesof a reduction unseen since the end of WWI I might concede that all issuescould be looked at and worked. Anyonewant to claim we still have those resources?

Grantedthis is just a bunch of opinions being spewed by people who don’t really have adog in the fight but that hardly means we should be silent in the face ofsilliness.

TJMAC77SP
01-16-2015, 08:26 PM
They have removed the marching/drill from NCOA, last I heard. I'm not sure about ALS, but I'd assume they have done so also.

Yeah, I kind of thought they would.

Mjölnir
01-16-2015, 09:22 PM
Your posts seem to say both which is confusing.

Which is my fault, I don't have a strong opinion on it changing or not; my strong opinion is in just saying "yes" or "no" without looking at the issue.

TJMAC77SP
01-16-2015, 09:55 PM
Which is my fault, I don't have a strong opinion on it changing or not; my strong opinion is in just saying "yes" or "no" without looking at the issue.

Well, in truth I don't either except as I tried to point out.............How did it become an 'issue'?

sandsjames
01-16-2015, 10:28 PM
Well, in truth I don't either except as I tried to point out.............How did it become an 'issue'?

Exactly. It's almost like saying "We should look at whether we should let guys dye their hair blue." The question is WHY???? Who's complaining about it currently? Is it a major thing that people are bringing up? I've never heard one person complain about having their head shaved in Basic. It's only an issue because someone felt like making it one.

Capt Alfredo
01-16-2015, 11:18 PM
Very weak...

What happens in these situation is that a specific shop has programs and a way of doing things. It works. Everyone is trained on what they are supposed to do and the job is getting done efficiently. Then, a new officer comes into the squadron. Before much time passes, a "think-tank" is assembled (which wastes everyone's time) to figure out a better process. Over time, new procedures are implemented. This requires more time wasted on training, briefing, updating, etc. In the end, the process is no better than it was in the first place. It's different...it LOOKS fresh...but the results are the same, just with more inconveniences to get to that point.

When comparing this to haircuts, it's not just ME putting the left shoe on first. It's EVERYONE. Nice attempt, though.

I've never come into a new shop and done what you've described. Believe it or not, I'm not a reinvent-the-wheel kind of person. I would, however, stop doing shit that doesn't make sense. That doesn't mean we start doing something just to make up the difference.

Capt Alfredo
01-16-2015, 11:21 PM
Actually what we know is that women transition. What we don't 'know' is what measures are taken to assimilate them in lieu of shaving their heads. We don't 'know' the comparative failure rates between men and women. By 'know' in this case I mean we haven't done a proper comparison here.

Let's look at this from your standpoint. Why to we teach drill and ceremonies? Close order drill in no way contributes to the mission of the military. It is necessary for parades and such but that is hardly a mission of the military, merely a 'by-product' sort of thing and actually a left over from the days when that is actually how armies moved on the battlefield. Certainly not applicable to today's military.


I kind of think drill does do something for the military trainee that is tangible. It gets everyone to work together and play specific roles as part of a greater team. It's not male vs female or tall vs short or anything like that; it's everyone, marching in step, reacting to the orders of the person placed in charge of the formation. I thought it was useful both as a member of the unit and also as the person marching the flight when I was put in that position. Do we "march into battle" anymore? No. But personally, I think this is a valuable bit of training.

Rainmaker
01-17-2015, 02:44 AM
Your posts seem to say both which is confusing.

The pilot program is going to measure a fairly intangible thing. I am not a betting man but if I were I would bet that the pilot program 'proves' to be a success.

Most people posting here (myself included) don't really give two shits about whether or not a male recruit gets their head shaved; or that a female recruit doesn't. We are simply tired of people (leadership) attempting to fix what ain't broke while there is a shit ton of stuff in the military that does need to be fixed. I am scared to death picturing the staff hours that went into this study and the hours that will be spent executing it and then studying the results. Oh the Power Point presentations alone are enough to cause an MI.

Someoneraised the issue of TQM. If you study Deming's work and how the Japaneseimplemented it there is obvious genius there. Unfortunately we aren'tJapanese and our execution of it was an abortion. We became (and to alarge extent still are) a metric driven force. TQM became a performancereport bullet statement. Don't have it? Forget about it. Itbecame the 90's equivalent of not stating a member supports the equalopportunity program. Do we need to shave the heads of malerecruits? I don’t know, let’s do a pilotprogram and see. Stupid and pointless. Sorry, I know I am off point here a bit but it is just another indicator of the mindset of failure we have in the military. We have very little true leadership. Not to say that is a universal problem (or even unique to this time period) but it is enough to cause me serious concern.
Alternativelysome staff weenie asks the question and the man/woman in charge asks………whatevidence do we have it isn’t helping train recruits?....................none……………ok ,are there any areas for which we have empirical data that shows we couldimprove?...................yes……….ok, there are your marching orders. Now, if the US military wasn’t in the throesof a reduction unseen since the end of WWI I might concede that all issuescould be looked at and worked. Anyonewant to claim we still have those resources?

Grantedthis is just a bunch of opinions being spewed by people who don’t really have adog in the fight but that hardly means we should be silent in the face ofsilliness.



Good Post...TQM....Rainmaker still shudders when he hears that phrase....

Japan's economy collapsed in 1991 and has never really recovered. Japan (just like China today) was a bubble economy fueled by the Globalists who off-shored our industrial production.

Japanese genius was a myth, designed to deflect the American Citizen's attention away from how bad the Political Class and their Oligarch Masters were screwing them.

TQM doesn't work.

TJMAC77SP
01-17-2015, 05:16 AM
I kind of think drill does do something for the military trainee that is tangible. It gets everyone to work together and play specific roles as part of a greater team. It's not male vs female or tall vs short or anything like that; it's everyone, marching in step, reacting to the orders of the person placed in charge of the formation. I thought it was useful both as a member of the unit and also as the person marching the flight when I was put in that position. Do we "march into battle" anymore? No. But personally, I think this is a valuable bit of training.

Why are you going back two pages to reply to a post you already replied to? I am even more confused now. I agree with you but as stated using the logic provided, drill is of no use in current training since it could potentially be replaced by more relevant and efficient methods. You seem to be now making the point that shaving the heads of males should stand as it too provides something that is tangible.

Capt Alfredo
01-17-2015, 05:57 AM
Why are you going back two pages to reply to a post you already replied to? I am even more confused now. I agree with you but as stated using the logic provided, drill is of no use in current training since it could potentially be replaced by more relevant and efficient methods. You seem to be now making the point that shaving the heads of males should stand as it too provides something that is tangible.

I respond to the comments as they come in. I didn't "go back" and do anything. I am not making the point that shaving male heads should stand because there is nothing universal being provided. But whatever.

TJMAC77SP
01-17-2015, 02:46 PM
I respond to the comments as they come in. I didn't "go back" and do anything. I am not making the point that shaving male heads should stand because there is nothing universal being provided. But whatever.

Sorry, confused you with our resident Thor. So you don't support shaving heads because there is nothing 'universal' being provided. Don't know exactly what you mean by that but whatever.

How about close order drill? What does that add that isn't being or couldn't be accomplished with other military training?

Mjölnir
01-17-2015, 03:18 PM
... drill is of no use in current training since it could potentially be replaced by more relevant and efficient methods. ...

There is a lot of training that is complimentary or reinforced by other training ... sometimes redundant.

Based on my example before, as a fairly experienced infantryman acting as the patrol leader for a group composed of Marines some of who had advanced infantry training and some who had just had the basics, using terms that came out of drill training conveyed what I wanted them to do and ironically they all did what I was asking ... so it worked. If it has just been a group of infantrymen I would have used different terms. Granted, this may not be needed in the Air Force, but the original statement that started this whole mess about drill referred to the military as a whole.

TJMAC77SP
01-17-2015, 04:42 PM
There is a lot of training that is complimentary or reinforced by other training ... sometimes redundant.

Based on my example before, as a fairly experienced infantryman acting as the patrol leader for a group composed of Marines some of who had advanced infantry training and some who had just had the basics, using terms that came out of drill training conveyed what I wanted them to do and ironically they all did what I was asking ... so it worked. If it has just been a group of infantrymen I would have used different terms. Granted, this may not be needed in the Air Force, but the original statement that started this whole mess about drill referred to the military as a whole.

And I pointed out that your example is questionable. A column formation is basic to all combat training therefore having advanced training or not is irrelevant. They all would have (or should have) known what a column formation is. I can take ten US Army graduates of BCT with ten different MOS's and tell them to get in a column formation in a tactical environment and am comfortable they would be able to do so. Maybe not as quickly or efficiently as infantryman but they would get it done. The same holds true for Marines and certain AF specialties.

Having said that I (again) completely agree with you that drill is a necessary training method and you are (again) avoiding the point being made. It is illogical to cherry pick one training method and decide that method is no longer relevant if there is no evidence that the method doesn't work, is limiting recruiting goals (which probably is one reason females aren't required to shave their heads), or is simply outdated. The point made in several posts now is using that logic one could extrapolate that to a lot of training methods used in accession training