Poll: Is it sexist that men in the military have to shave their heads and women don't?

Recommended Videos

Kennetic

New member
Jan 18, 2011
374
0
0
First and foremost: the military is not the civilian world, you do not have the same rights as civilians and the military often laughs at political correctness (not lately but whatever). Is it sexist? Yes. Is there a reason males have to keep their hair short? Yes. For combat purposes, long hair can get you killed by an enemy grabbing it. And women can't have their hair down anyways. It's either a tight-ass bun or it's short enough where it doesn't touch the collar so there's really no difference. The physical standards are far more sexist than hair standards anyways. A female's max score for pushups isn't even passing for males and their 2-mile run standards are hilariously slower than male standards. The situps are the same, but apparently women have naturally strong abs so whatever. Shaving is standard across the board for a proper gas mask seal.
 

sl0th

New member
Jun 7, 2009
4
0
0
When I was in the Marines, differences for men and women in Physical Training Tests (PFT), Uniform standards, and grooming standards always baffled me. Why not make it all the same? I had to learn the standards for a slew of uniforms I did not wear once I became a Corporal.
One such standard, pull-ups, a male must do 20 for a perfect score, which was pretty rare.
A female has to perform a flex arm-hang for an allotted time any female in halfway decent shape could get a perfect score. There were some shall I say bigger women that would fail it outright, so having the different standard did not even matter, for most females it was a pass or fail. Side note: the time and method changed several time while I was in, to try to alleviate the Pass or Fail problem and for overall fairness.
The PFT score factors into promotions, so women in the Marine Corps generally gain promotions faster than their male counterparts. Not to mention on meritorious promotion boards they would consistently win over males. The joke became that we should start doing separate boards for males and females but that seems more sexist.

I did know many females (I was in the air-wing so we had quite a few um, non-girly types) that could do the pull-ups no problem and would say, "Just take my pull-up score" but standards are standards and they had to do the flex-arm hang as well.

Back the point of the hair thing, I really did not care either way, I only knew one female to shave her head and she lost a rank for it, her response, "Worth it."
 

sageoftruth

New member
Jan 29, 2010
3,417
0
0
I can't say for sure. If I knew why women weren't required to shave, maybe I could answer the question based on reason.
 

DocMcCray

New member
Oct 14, 2010
179
0
0
After reading through the comments, I've noticed what was missing. The actual reason why (at least in the USA) females are not forced to shave their heads.

The US has an all volunteer military. There is no draft (at this time), so all of the military recruits make a choice to join. Many who try to join are turned away for various reason including, but limited to; criminal record, bad eyesight, disease carriers, and lots and lots of other medical conditions. Since the military in general must be ready to perform severe actions in a short period of time, you need a very healthy and robust force.

That being said, most jobs in the military can be done by males or females. Even the ones that are males only are shrinking fast (IE serving on submarines...females welcome now.) In order to fill all the necessary jobs, you have to allow both men and women to join.

Now ask yourself this: How many women would willingly join the military if they were *forced* to shave their heads?

If you say more than a handful, you are sadly mistaken.

So the reason there is a double standard is because of necessity. The military needs women. Most women want to keep their hair. No hair = not enough women to fill the jobs.
 

Robot Number V

New member
May 15, 2012
657
0
0
lacktheknack said:
Just because it's sexist doesn't mean it has to be eliminated. Childbirth, for instance, is hilariously sexist.
Gee, nice thread here. It would really be a shame if someone....derailed it.

Anyway, this might sound kind of batshit insane, but I'm kinda looking forward to the day when the need for childbirth IS eliminated. You know, like in the future, when we'll be able to just grow babies in giant tubes or whatever. I mean, I'm not saying I would want normal childbirth to be OUTLAWED or anything, just that having the option for a baby to be born with an equal amount of effort from both partners wouldn't be a bad thing.

And don't tell me the kid would be traumatized to learn he came from a tube. It's better then coming out of your mom's junk.

Uh...OT: Yeah, it's a bit sexist, I guess. Whatever. That doesn't mean it's actually a big deal.
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
spartan231490 said:
Let us think about this for a minute. The men have to and the women don't . . . is that sexist? Do you really even have to ask? But why aren't we talking about women not having to register for selective service? Really, WHY IS THIS STILL A THING?!!!
Because it sucks to be an orphan.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
OlasDAlmighty said:
spartan231490 said:
Let us think about this for a minute. The men have to and the women don't . . . is that sexist? Do you really even have to ask? But why aren't we talking about women not having to register for selective service? Really, WHY IS THIS STILL A THING?!!!
Because it sucks to be an orphan.
Putting aside the fact that the odds of both parents being drafted is astronomical, as are the odds that they would both go on to die as a result from their service, there is one other really big flaw to that argument.
A draft would be completely random with exclusionary criteria, right? Here's an idea: instead of being sexist as a society, let's just add that if your spouse/parent of your child was already drafted, you can't be drafted. See, much fairer and more legitimate solution than discriminating against roughly half of the population.
 

Libra

New member
Feb 4, 2012
111
0
0
Wait... so you guys 'essentially lost [y]our individuality as a person'? And people join the army voluntarily? My god...

Anyway, OT: I wouldn't call it sexist. I don't really think fighting sexism is about making everything exactly the same for men and women, and more about removing overly unfair (dis)advantages. OF course, I guess it should be possible for men with long hair to use a bun or ponytail as well then.
 

Bertylicious

New member
Apr 10, 2012
1,400
0
0
The_Echo said:
AccursedTheory said:
Hair standards for modern militaries are less about lice, and more about having soldiers that don't look like a crew of shitty 1980's mercenaries. Shaving a females hair, which may take years to grow back, really isn't practical. Sure, it may help with the whole training thing, but then what?
Well, say a guy like me, whose hair reaches his shoulders, joins the military.

They'd have to cut it off. You don't think that would take forever to grow back?

Either both men and women have to shave their hair, or neither. I feel the same way concerning the draft. Equal treatment.
Hair doesn't take THAT long to grow back and it isn't like losing a limb or something. Good to know that the hair thing is more to do with the military fetish for ceremony, bagpipes and complicated flag folding than anything else; makes sense in that context although I think it would actually look better with shaved heads for everyone, including the canine units.

Totally agree with the comments relating to equal physical standards as well. I work for a manufacturing company and we have jobs where, occaisonally, people have to lift heavy loads. Not everyone can do them, I couldn't do them as I've got as much meat on me as a chicken mcnugget, but I do know for a fact that there are women who can do meet intense physical standards. I reckon they should be given the opportunity.
 

deadish

New member
Dec 4, 2011
694
0
0
Surprise amount of people defending the practice here for some reason.

If it's disadvantageous for men to have "long" hair, it should be for women too.

At the very least women need a "standard" haircut, preferable one that is as short as possible for easy maintenance.

There is a reason for all the standardisation and ceremony, it's part of the military indoctrination process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recruit_training
 

Adeptus Aspartem

New member
Jul 25, 2011
843
0
0
It is sexist and it is stupid.
We had bunch of guys in our squad with long hair, since they were metal-heads. Our military allows you to keep your long hair though, as long as you always wear a hair-net or something else to keep your hair in check.
 

somonels

New member
Oct 12, 2010
1,209
0
0
And let's just entirely sidestep the fact that men are the ones that are forcibly drafted and have mandatory service in some countries. It's okay to send us into the grinder,as long as we don't punch girls... so a female army would be the ultimate defence!
 

OneCatch

New member
Jun 19, 2010
1,111
0
0
Esotera said:
I'm sort of surprised that the army doesn't enforce it for everyone as I'd always thought the reason for short hair was to stop the spread of lice and to stop anyone from grabbing long hair in close combat.
And to stop it getting caught in bolts, slides, ammunition belts, etc, as you're firing.
Or getting stuck in some other bit of hardware or personal equipment.
Or catching on fire.

So yeah, I agree that there are probably other more pressing issues of discrimination to deal with before haircuts!
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
Hectix777 said:
Colour Scientist said:
"Hairstyles shall not be outrageously multicoloured or faddish, to include shaved portions of the scalp (other than the neckline)"
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/navy/a/navygrooming_2.htm

Apparently they aren't allowed to shave their heads.

It also says that men are allowed to have hair up to 2 inches long.
Well not shaved hair, but crew cuts. The near equivalent to a shaved a head.
I can only speak from experience in the US Army but when you arrive at Basic Training, your head is shaved down to the scalp using clippers. This haircut is maintained by a haircut once a week which, because working for the Government is awesome, you get to pay for personally! Furthermore, while there does exist a generic regulation governing one's hair (it cannot touch the ears or collar and can be no longer than 2 inches on top) any person within your chain of command is free to place tighter restrictions. I've never encountered a commander willing to put up with someone with two inches of hair - that is, all told, fairly long and, thanks to the constant use of hats when outdoors, forces a soldier to spend a great deal of time correcting their appearance upon transitioning indoors.

By contrast, Female soldiers could have hair of any length provided they were able to secure it in such a way that they could wear any headgear to regulation standard while simultaneously keeping it off the collar and ears. This lead to rather odd scenarios where you'd never notice just how long someone's hair was until you saw them off duty and noted they had hair well past the shoulder. As a personal experience, female soldiers were also rarely held to the exact lettering of the standard and so often there would be a soldier who had such a massive cluster of hair that their beret or patrol cap could not be worn such that it was parallel to the ground.

The question of if this is sexist is relatively easy to answer: yes. They are held to an arbitrarily lax grooming standard enforced for several thousand years for not only purposes of instilling discipline and all that nonsense but because of various health and safety concerns (parasites of all sorts, vulnerability in close combat, etc) with no justification given. They are simply allowed to keep very long hair for no other reason than they are female - all those other concerns still exist.

This is just one of many double standards in the military though. An 18 year old female soldier was only expected to be able to run as fast as a middle aged male. A run time that would achieve the maximum score on the PT test for a female would result in failure (by a wide margin) for an 18 year old male. Achieving the maximum score on the pushup would barely be a pass for a male. It was only in the situp event that there was any parity.

Other examples make more sense - for example, there are differences in uniform regulation across the board. On the Dress uniform, every accoutrement and decoration on a male's uniform was be placed precisely - an inspection often involves the use of a ruler to determine if the standard has been met. By contrast, the same decorations on a female uniform simply must be eyeballed. This one at least makes a modicum of sense as the female form makes the use of consistent markings in the form of pockets and the like hard to use for judgement and the natural curves on the chest (where such decorations reside) make careful measurement irrelevant as different figures will result in decorations being carried and displayed differently.

Libra said:
Wait... so you guys 'essentially lost [y]our individuality as a person'? And people join the army voluntarily? My god...
This isn't unique to the military of any nation - a military unit must be a team in all things in order to succeed. Part of the long accepted (as in several thousand years of wide acceptance) practice of instilling this teamwork is a process of breaking a soldier down individually and building them as a collective. It should be noted that this is more or less the same process used for any serious team-building enterprise you'll ever encounter. Many of the tricks and techniques used by the military are employed in the sporting world.
 

bartholen_v1legacy

A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
Jan 24, 2009
3,056
0
0
Libra said:
Wait... so you guys 'essentially lost [y]our individuality as a person'? And people join the army voluntarily? My god...
Wait WHAT? Shaving my head destroys my individuality? No offense, but that's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a while. Plus I served my military service, since it's mandatory where I live (which is not the US).

OT: Sexist? Yes, since it's segregation based on gender.

A problem? Fuck no, and if you try to say otherwise, you're an idiot. Unless you have religion-level reasons to do so (like being sikhi), then... why did you join the army in the first place? I actually took a great liking to having a buzz cut during my service. It removes a lots stuff to worry about, makes jogging easier and is generally IMO just more comfortable to be with. It makes me look like a serial killer, though, but screw that, I like it.
 

Chemical Alia

New member
Feb 1, 2011
1,658
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
TwoSidesOneCoin said:
Again call me an asshole if you will, but if I deploy and get shot and am surrounded with only women, I doubt they'll be able to drag my 235 lb ass into cover, oh wait, 260 lb ass loaded down with gear.
Talk from actual military folk who have been in that situation would indicate you're wrong. Not an asshole, but definitely not correct.
Haha, maybe if so many people in the army weren't so extremely heavy, it wouldn't be a problem at all!

memristor1 said:
If it is sexist, wouldn't it be sexist towards women? From what I've seen, women who do shave their heads on the military get a lot of flack from both men and other women. Rumors and comments about her sexuality etc. The sexist part about it is probably the sad message that a lot of people think part of a woman's worth is her attractiveness (hair being a part of that). But that same message isn't applied to males.
Yes, and very short hair in general, speaking from experience.