98th UNIFORM BOARD RESULTS (USAF)

[jimmydeanno]

I gotta wonder what some people were thinking as far as the list of disapprovals go. Some of those ideas were really stupid, espicially the ones that seemed blatantly anti-female, or just didn't seem like they were considering female airmen.

True, true!  Take the example of females wearing male trousers -- male trousers seem to be much more readily available -- and they look a helluva lot more practical than the female version.  Gosh forbid women have back trouser pockets (or even shirt pockets for that matter)!

Female members wearing male uniforms (flight caps, shirts, trousers, shoes, belts, ties, etc) hardly presents a "conservative feminine appearance" which is called out by the regulations. 

[tjaxe]

^ And the practicality of that is what in terms of utility, comfort and durability in uniforms.  Plus the "conservative feminine appearance" statement is WAY subjective.

[Hawk200]

^ And the practicality of that is what in terms of utility, comfort and durability in uniforms.  Plus the "conservative feminine appearance" statement is WAY subjective.

The concept of "conservative feminine appearance" may be subjective, but how clothing fits the genders isn't. Male clothing does not fit females the same way.

One of the biggest complaints by female service by female service members for decades was that clothing didn't fit women right. No small surprise considering that up until the '90's or so, it was all designed by men.

Service clothing (essentially any blues variation) isn't designed for utility or durability. Comfort is another issue altogether. A majority of people make the assumption that they can wear the same size uniform item that they wear civilian. It makes sense, but does not always apply.

The best way to get a proper comfort factor is go to a military clothing, try stuff on. For example, the size 2 you might normally wear might be a 4 in military clothing. It's not supposed to snug or tight. If you don't mind doing so, tailoring makes a lot of things better fitting and more comfortable.

[Spike]

If you don't mind doing so, tailoring makes a lot of things better fitting and more comfortable.

There are "rules" about tailoring and cutting uniforms to fit tighter or "snugger" or appear to be "form fitting". 

All Service Branches spell out about the same rules in the first few pages of their respective uniform publications. 

[Gunner C]

^ And the practicality of that is what in terms of utility, comfort and durability in uniforms.  Plus the "conservative feminine appearance" statement is WAY subjective.

Yes it is.  But when someone is over-the-line, it is "intuitively obvious to the casual observer."  Service uniforms are not designed for the David Bowies of the world.  Androgenous fashion statements, haircuts, etc don't fit.

[Hawk200]

If you don't mind doing so, tailoring makes a lot of things better fitting and more comfortable.

There are "rules" about tailoring and cutting uniforms to fit tighter or "snugger" or appear to be "form fitting". 

All Service Branches spell out about the same rules in the first few pages of their respective uniform publications.

I'm well aware of those rules, I've been wearing a military uniform of one type or another for over twenty years. Even though I've only served in two branches, I'm familiar with each uniformed services uniform manuals.

"Tailoring" does not necessarily mean to make it more form fitting, although it can include that. Tailoring in general makes it fit properly and comfortably, avoiding sags in some places, and improper stretching in others. A tailored item is not necessarily a snug or form-fitting one. My mother was a seamstress, and did plenty of tailoring on all kinds of garments. Many of which were not snug at all.

The concept is not and should not be interpreted as an intent to violate rules. Consider it in it's entirety, and not only one aspect.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I gotta wonder what some people were thinking as far as the list of disapprovals go. Some of those ideas were really stupid, espicially the ones that seemed blatantly anti-female, or just didn't seem like they were considering female airmen.

True, true!  Take the example of females wearing male trousers -- male trousers seem to be much more readily available -- and they look a helluva lot more practical than the female version.  Gosh forbid women have back trouser pockets (or even shirt pockets for that matter)!

Hey...

Men are not allowed to wear skirts, why should women be allowed to wear men's trousers?

Oops... I shouldn't have said that!   

[wuzafuzz]

I gotta wonder what some people were thinking as far as the list of disapprovals go. Some of those ideas were really stupid, espicially the ones that seemed blatantly anti-female, or just didn't seem like they were considering female airmen.

True, true!  Take the example of females wearing male trousers -- male trousers seem to be much more readily available -- and they look a helluva lot more practical than the female version.  Gosh forbid women have back trouser pockets (or even shirt pockets for that matter)!

Hey...

Men are not allowed to wear skirts, why should women be allowed to wear men's trousers?

Oops... I shouldn't have said that!   

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Before you know it guys men males will be asking to wear women's ties, service jackets, and hats...

[JohnKachenmeister]

Wait a minute.

We have had 98 uniform boards in the Air Force?

Hasn't the Air Force only existed for about 52 years?

98 boards in 52 years?

And I thought WE were bad!

[Hawk200]

Wait a minute.

We have had 98 uniform boards in the Air Force?

Hasn't the Air Force only existed for about 52 years?

98 boards in 52 years?

And I thought WE were bad!

Uh, for starters: 52? I could have sworn the Air Force became it's own separate branch in '47. Still called the Army Air Force at the time. Make us a lot closer to 60 than 50.

Second: I wouldn't be surprised if the first 50 boards were in the first couple of years. I'm pretty sure when I first joined they actually met twice a year. The results weren't published near as often, though. You'd hear about something "newly" authorized, and found it was authorized a year and a half ago.

The Air Force doesn't give it's members the opportunity to "listen in" to their sessions in the way CAP gives streaming video on its National Boards. With CAP, people are posting "newly authorized" items within minutes of it being approved there. Not sure it's the best idea.

[Cecil DP]

Problem is the Board passes a change than takes several years to rewrite the reg. They also have a habit of changing their minds after a year or two and retracting the change.

[Major Carrales]

Problem is the Board passes a change than takes several years to rewrite the reg. They also have a habit of changing their minds after a year or two and retracting the change.

And therein lies the problem.  That effect results in wasted money, time and confusion that sometimes leads to uncomforatable sitautions when "some schmendrick" doesn't know the "latest."  Even worse when that "schmendrick" is a UNIFORM NAZI that is uninformed of something the Borad passed just last week but does not have the stream.

I say, create a uniform manual, stick to it and then don't let it change for 5 years or so.

[Hawk200]

I say, create a uniform manual, stick to it and then don't let it change for 5 years or so.

Considering the way they publish the changes, I think I'd have to go along with this. Used to be that when there were changes, we'd see a supplement to the manual. I haven't seen a 39-1 supplement in years.

[CAP.is.1337]

Here's my Copy-Paste from AFBlues:

Wait a minute... They're making male/female ABU trousers? Oh, great!

One nice thing about utility uniforms is that they are one type fits everyone: no worrying about which way the zipper points or whether it has pockets or not. The only thing you should need to know is "Does it fit?"

I'm glad I'll be out of the CAP cadet program when/if we transition to ABU's. "Why do the guys get their ABU pants given to them, and we have to buy ours?" Blech!

I hope this one gets nixed in the near future, before we transition.

[Hawk200]

Here's my Copy-Paste from AFBlues:

Wait a minute... They're making male/female ABU trousers? Oh, great!

One nice thing about utility uniforms is that they are one type fits everyone: no worrying about which way the zipper points or whether it has pockets or not. The only thing you should need to know is "Does it fit?"

I'm glad I'll be out of the CAP cadet program when/if we transition to ABU's. "Why do the guys get their ABU pants given to them, and we have to buy ours?" Blech!

I hope this one gets nixed in the near future, before we transition.

You hope the Air Force will nix something they have approved? It's the Air Force, they don't approve, rescind, modify, then re-approve things like Civil Air Patrol does.

The Air Force decides what it wants to allow, they have actual professionals in the industry present to confirm feasibility, and the ideas are pretty straightforward. Their approved list is far shorter than the disapproved list. Most of the ideas were pretty well researched before they were submitted, or before the board released it's findings.

Either way, it doesn't really matter to us. We buy all our uniforms anyway.

[Pumbaa]

[citizensoldier]

With this they ought to let us wear the black fleece with the BDU.

"A. UTILITY UNIFORMS

1) WEAR OF FOLIAGE GREEN FLEECE AS AN OUTER GARMENT WITH ABU"


Not that it'll happen.

CS