Army Post Issues New Regulations Cracking a Down On Civilian Appearance
I wonder how long it will be before someone cries racism/sexism or whatever other -isms there are out there to get this policy revised like we saw with the hair policy:
If you want to go out in public on Fort Leonard Wood you better ditch the tank top, pull up your saggy drawers and shave that scruff.
Maj. Gen. Leslie Smith, the Missouri post’s commanding general, issued new appearance standards in a Nov. 10 policy update.
The rules not only crack down on sloppy dress, but skimpy outfits as well: No short skirts, exposed midriffs and revealing undergarments.
The rules fall under the post’s Command Policy 18, which used to be called “Wear and Appearance of Uniforms.” Now it’s called “Wear and Appearance of Uniforms and Civilian Attire,” which really brings into focus the expansion of the policy to include not only soldiers in civilian clothes, but also spouses, kids, guests – anyone who comes on post. (Army Times)
You can read more at the link.
This would be laughed out of a court pretty fast. The garrison commander at Ft. Shafter did this crap too. Unless there’s some health, safety, etc. consideration there’s no legal foundation for anyone in a public position having the right to dictate how the public can dress. I wish someone would challenge this and remind these commanders who they work for.
GI by your comment of wondering when someone will cry about an “ism” to get the policy revised can I assume you’re in support of this horse5hit?
I don’t have an “ism” but I have something that ends with a ‘m’: freedom. Freedom as an American to express myself as one does through their choice of clothing. Freedom to lawfully enter a military installation for whatever acceptable purpose for whatever reason brought me there without having to worry about if some phucking old man approves of what I’m wearing.
Leslie has a right as an American too, he has the right to be put off by someone’s dress and voice that opinion but he ultimate only has the highest right to suck it the phuck up and move on. If the military wants to continue pretending that these stupid rules give any additional appearance of anything other than being retards and enforce it internally on their own so be it but hands off citizens.
I’m sure this crap will still be present when I get back CONUS so I’m going to make a point to do something about it.
“No bare mid-drifts, shirts with cut-out armpits or sleeveless shirts, tank tops, swimsuits, or shorts/skirts/tops that “are too revealing.””
So he has Talibanitis — doesn’t like to see women exposing bare arms. I wonder what the First Lady would have to say about that.
I hope it doesn’t get too hot in Missouri in the summer time. AAFES will have to limit their selection. Just to see what the ladies will be denied, I went to shopmyexchange.com and did a search on “tank tops” to find out what AAFES would have had to offer.
Corrected link.
Leaked photo from the new Warrior Handbook which shows approved swimming attire for females:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-P_Ha0tpA43U/T8A4I25O81I/AAAAAAAABZk/4Xw2ixV38Aw/s1600/Screen%2Bshot%2B2011-10-13%2Bat%2B5.51.30%2BPM.png
Too revealing. A soldier could get overexcited and cause an incident. That would look bad for the command.
Revise to the following:
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Politics/images-3/muslim-women-on-beach.jpg
‘Civilianism'(TM) you had it on the tip of your tongue. Good, wouldn’t want servicemembers to ever become proficient in Civilianism Dressing(not to be confused with Turkeyianism Dressing/
AMNESTY or not) have always been outcasts/Aliens so this ain’t going to change anything! Maj. Gen. Leslie Smith must have a Dufus Characterianism.
It seems reasonable for the military to promote a professional appearance on post.
What’s the big deal?
Because this also applies to civilians!
“Because this also applies to civilians!” on post.
There. Fixed that.
I happen to approve of location-based appearance and behavior… so I am not seeing a problem.
Whipped cream-on-girl-on-girl-on-bar is appropriate at the ChickenHead… but not on a headstone at Arlington.
In the same way, a ratty hoodie and saggy pants are fine in the hood… but disrespectful to working servicemembers.
Further, people behave differently depending on how they are dressed… and it is correct to encourage respectful behavior for all visitors to a military installation.
I’m going to just pretend you’re joking around because otherwise you’ve greatly lowered my opinion of you.
Smokes… I understand your thinking… but, like the captain of a ship or the man of the house, the commander of the base should have almost total authority to execute reasonable actions…
…just like they should have NO authority outside the main gate.
If you truly don’t grasp why that is, I can run down a long list from the obvious to the practical… to the academic… to the theoretical.
In the this case…
The reality is that servicemembers need to be disciplined, both professionally and personally, to accomplish the mission. Functioning in a disciplined environment encourages this discipline. Military installations should be disciplined environments… very much different from the trailer parks, barrios, ghettos, and hoods from where too many military members, dependents, civilian workers, and hanger-on visitors came from… and seemingly wish to bring their low-class ways… and wish to flaunt them simply because they are too ignorant and unsocialized to see the crassness of it all.
Is it really that big of deal to have a reasonable dress code on a military installation? Is it a bigger deal than banning the catcalls GIs are welcome to do in a titty bar… or the excessive alcohol they can drink at a garage party… or the nudity they might display at a nude beach?
Every place has its appropriate attitude, action, and attire. Military installations should be filled with appropriately dressed people on their best behavior… even if they are not in the military.
Those wishing to make a “statement” through fashion are welcome to do it elsewhere… as many of those statements conflict with a productive military mindset.
There is no shortage of shytbags in the military… and the power to beat the shytbaggedness out of them has been taken away. Maybe you can’t put lipstick on a pig… but maybe by forcing it to pull up its pants and wear a collared shirt, it will be less of a pig… especially when it sees how much more nicely the rest of society treats it.
In the end, military bases should be beacons of honorable actions, disciplined behavior, and exemplary appearance… not extensions of the trailer park, the barrio, the ghetto, and the hood.
If you cannot see this, you are part of the current problem of the deterioration of many aspects of American society.
Here is where this will eventually go…Civilian dress codes will be selectively enforced by race, sex, & the rank of your husband/father…Look for some major push back from civilians on this, as the military has NO authority over civilians…sure, they can debar them from base, but the MSM will roast these arrogant commanders alive. I agree that there should be some degree of decency in public dress, but the military is just a microcosm of American society & to try to enforce some level of artificial control over it, especially in light of the degradation & social change that the military has recently undergone, is laughable. I just have to wonder where this imitative originated from?
Two schools of thought-
1. Army post, army rules, if you don’t like it, don’t come onto post or live here
2. It’s a free country and if they want to dress like skank-ho’s, that’s their right as long as it isn’t illegal. Just looks bad on them.
I don’t often agree with ChickenHead, but for once I agree completely.
Military base, military rules. The garrison commander has the final say-so of what constitutes an acceptable appearance on that base. Civilians can be held accountable to base regulations as well – because they’re guests and are privileged to be there – not required.
*Many* bases moderate their standards of dress – I know for a fact Yongsan did so several months back (8-9 months ago?) and I know most Navy bases literally won’t let you onto the quarterdeck (through the main gate) in either direction (in or out) if you look disheveled.
Jimbob is a smart man.
It is likely he agreed with me TWICE today.
It’s pretty sad that you (that’s a plural you) don’t get why this is an affront to freedom. Your ignorance shows you deserve no rights and unbelievably I find myself hearing accurate insight from BenjoDitch while ChickenHead raves insanely.
Smokes, instead of speaking in generalities, please give specifics.
The “freedom” angle is a reasonable point… but…
People give up freedom to work at McDonald’s when they wear a uniform… and give up freedom to wear cut-offs and tire sandals to walk in the door of a nice resturaunt… and should give up the freedom to wear a hoodie and a Fukk the Police t-shirt instead of a tie when they appear before a judge…
…and it is equally reasonable that they give up the “freedom” to look like a scumbag, thug, ruffian, slut, or skank when they are on the tiny bit of taxpayer-funded land that has, for much of American history, served to socialize Americans from every area, class, and race into a team with common values and thinking… that, for the most part, was better than what they brought to the military.
BenjoDitch spoke reality… but not a pleasant one. His idea is that society is screwed… so why should the military even bother trying to demonstrate any leadership or discipline with hopes to unscrew their little part of it… with the hope of encouraging a more refined lifestyle than what was learned in the hood.
This passive, defeatist thinking is what allows the barbarians to win. This is what makes a 6 foot 4, 300 pound thug with a history of violence and criminality a “hero”, with his actions largely unquestioned, while real heroes go unnoticed.
Again, so it is clear, military leadership should have NO authority over what anyone, military or civilian, does in private or off-installation (unless their actions carry over to the military)… but they should demand high standards, on or off duty, for anyone coming onto the installation… including civilians who are little more than guests and may leave at any time.
Dependents may conform to standards (which are hardly unreasonable) or live on the local economy and present whatever image they want. Civilian workers are welcome to find employment on a hog farm or a gay bar or wherever their appearance is acceptable.
Breakdowns in discipline, relaxing of uniformity, lowering of standards, giving up on expectations, special treatment for various noisy groups, unwillingness to force compliance, etc., has done the military no favors… and has done American society no favors.
…but, as my opinion seems to be the minority here, I am interested to hear specific opinions of what is wrong with enforcing military standards on military bases.
My detailed thoughts on the subjects are way to long to write out on here, they’d make your last post look like an incomplete thought. Why don’t you swing on up to Seoul tomorrow and I’ll regale you for hours with specifics. I got nothing to do, open invite for anyone to debate.
We had Tranny Month, Prison Sex Month, and Treat Tbone Like a Biitch Month…
…but is it Quick To Vomit Up My Opinion Yet Slow To Justify It Month already?
Nope it appears to be “Pretend Smokes hasn’t said enough about this already Month.”
“Pretend Smokes hasn’t said enough about this already Month.”
Noooo, silly. That is what we compassionately celebrate EVERY month.
Maybe this month is Point Out That Smokes Hasn’t Said Nearly Enough of Actual Substance Concerning This Important Issue Except That, Dammit, He Doesn’t Like It at All and Is Going to DO Something About It Month?
P.S. For verification, I sent an urgent telex to the Third Deputy Assistant Vice Subdirector of Pan-Regional Communications and Media Affairs for the United Nations High Commission Working Group on Long-Winded and Overly-Wordy Commemorative Month Titles but have yet to receive a reply.