Beards?

[ddelaney103]

I don't think the question should be "are people with beards 2nd class," but instead, "does it serve us to have so many uniforms?"

If we can't have everyone in AF uniforms, we should all be in something else or we should get rid of those who can't wear AF (personally, I think the first option is much better).  While there are many orgs, like the AF, who have a slew of uniforms, there are few that make uniform decisions based on the members height/weight/grooming instead of duties.

If we went the non-AF way, we could adopt a grooming standard based on police/fire/EMS guidelines.  Would there be people that need correcting and judgment calls?  Sure, but we have them now.

The goal is to have the uniform enhance our professionalism, which should feed into the mission.  How is the mission served by having members we exclude from some of our uniforms?

[ZigZag911]

As long as there is a cadet program (and as a former cadet, I hope that is as long as there is CAP!), the cadets will be in AF type uniforms, at the insistence of USAF. They view it as a recruiting incentive for the cadets, as well as live advertising.

There have been many proposals on this forum for revision & consolidation of senior uniforms, many of them good ideas (I've even proposed a few myself).

The problem is that current members have invested personal funds in the present spectrum of uniforms.

CAP should probably enact a 5 to 10 year moratorium on uniform changes (leaving the issues of awards, patches, insignia and so forth aside -- we're talking uniform combinations here).

Early in that period there should be an in-depth study of the situation, including a broad-based survey of members, former members, AF personnel familiar with CAP, regarding the long term direction for CAP senior member uniforms.

I do not subscribe to the notion that adult members ("officers") need to wear the identical uniform as the cadets to lead them effectively.

Both the US Navy and Royal Navy have had pretty effective leadership for a long time even though the senior leadership (officers and chief petty officers) wore an entirely different uniform than the enlisted personnel.

The issue is proper wear of the assigned uniform to set the right example -- leading by personal example.

[Dragoon]

I think you're right - any attempt to standardize back to a single set of uniforms would take a while, as there would have to be a rather long phase-in period so folks aren't unhappy about all that they've spent on "obsolete" stuff.

But there is hardly that level of investment in grooming standards - at least in terms of money.


Compare the following statements from prospective male members

1.  "If I can't wear my earring(s), I'm not joining."

2.  "If I can't wear a beard, I'm not joining."

3.  "If I can't wear my hair down to my waist, I'm not joining."

4.   "If I can't keep my mohawk, I'm not joining."


Do these hit everyone in the gut the same way?  Or are some variations from USAF standards more "okay" than others.  And if so, why?  Personal preference?  How come some grooming choices are fine, while others just make your stomach churn?  It it truly fair to indulge one set of fashion statements and exclude others?

It seems to me that a single grooming standard is the first, low cost, step to greater uniformity. You decide what the standard should be, and then apply it uniformly to all corporate uniforms.

Then, you can whittle down the number of corporate uniforms until you only have one equivalent for each USAF suit.

And then, if someone wants to go the last huge step, you could either eliminate one set of uniforms or the other.

[Hawk200]

Compare the following statements from prospective male members

1.  "If I can't wear my earring(s), I'm not joining."

2.  "If I can't wear a beard, I'm not joining."

3.  "If I can't wear my hair down to my waist, I'm not joining."

4.   "If I can't keep my mohawk, I'm not joining."


Do these hit everyone in the gut the same way?  Or are some variations from USAF standards more "okay" than others.  And if so, why?  Personal preference?  How come some grooming choices are fine, while others just make your stomach churn?  It it truly fair to indulge one set of fashion statements and exclude others?

It seems to me that a single grooming standard is the first, low cost, step to greater uniformity. You decide what the standard should be, and then apply it uniformly to all corporate uniforms.

I can pretty much answer all of those with rather reasonable answers:

1. You're not allowed ear jewely while in uniform. So you've got to take them out for a few hours a week. What's so hard about that? And there are companies that prohibit males from wearing earrings for males, too. If you won't take a job because they won't let you wear earrings, that's your choice too.

2. I don't see a problem with beards in the first place. There's a lot of places that will hire a guy with a beard before they hire a guy with earrings. They(earrings) aren't allowed for guys where I work, and I deliver pizza for a living.

3. Potential safety issue. And how hard is it to get a haircut? What kind of fashion statement are you trying to make with hair down to your waist that hair to your collar doesn't? And isn't it harder to care for that when it's that long?

4. I know a lot of places that wouldn't hire a guy with a mohawk. For the simple fact that it's just not professional in appearance. And sometimes it scares little kids. And big ones. And little old ladies. And probably a few others that I haven't even thought about yet.

From that list, I see one apple, and three oranges. One, there's really no issues of professional appearance, the others are. Besides, I think that anyone with a mohawk that says if they can't keep they won't join, probably doesn't really want to join anyway. They just present that as an excuse.

Wearing a uniform requires certain conformities. Noone would be able to walk into a recruiters office with mohawk and say that they would want to keep it, they be laughed out of there. Beards are not an issue for CAP, because a uniform is available that permits it.

Overall, I think some diversity is a good thing. But extremes aren't appropriate. There can be professional appearance with a beard just as much as without one. Mohawks, waist-long hair, and earrings don't lend themselves to that.

[thefischNX01]

Overall, I think some diversity is a good thing. But extremes aren't appropriate. There can be professional appearance with a beard just as much as without one. Mohawks, waist-long hair, and earrings don't lend themselves to that.

I agree.  Although Earings, long hair and mowhawks are inappropriate, I see nothing wrong with a well-trimmed beard.  I include trimmed goatees in this category as well, so long as it's neatly trimmed. 

Not this...


More this:

See....isn't that professional looking?

[Eclipse]

I include trimmed goatees in this category as well, so long as it's neatly trimmed. 

More this:

See....isn't that professional looking?

Yes, and I am so there when Starfleet finally starts accepting applications, because any long time fan will tell you Starfleet has never had an issue with tubbies in their standard uniform.

However, since I'm in CAP right now, define, in an objective way, "neatly trimmed".  (and for the record, before my CAP days, I wore a beard nearly identical to Herr Rikers, and have always preferred him that way).

[Pumbaa]

Just in case you were wondering..    It also helps that Herr Rikers is a good looking guy too!

Unlike some of us who have a different type of Hollywood look....

[Pumbaa]

And just in case you were wondering, I have shaved, but I look a lot better with my goatee...

[Dragoon]

I can pretty much answer all of those with rather reasonable answers:

1. You're not allowed ear jewely while in uniform. So you've got to take them out for a few hours a week. What's so hard about that? And there are companies that prohibit males from wearing earrings for males, too. If you won't take a job because they won't let you wear earrings, that's your choice too.

But why NOT allow jewelry in uniform?  There are big companies that allow male jewelry.  There are also companies that don't allow beards....

Point is, it's just another personal fashion statement - why are some personal fashion statements allowed and others aren't? [/quote]

3. Potential safety issue. And how hard is it to get a haircut? What kind of fashion statement are you trying to make with hair down to your waist that hair to your collar doesn't? And isn't it harder to care for that when it's that long?

Safety issue for who?  For an AE officer?  Or a PAO?  Or even a comms guy?  And whether it's hard to care for is irrelevant - it's just another personal fashion statement - like a beard.

4. I know a lot of places that wouldn't hire a guy with a mohawk. For the simple fact that it's just not professional in appearance. And sometimes it scares little kids. And big ones. And little old ladies. And probably a few others that I haven't even thought about yet.

But to take Mr. Mohawk's side, so what?  What if he's a super talented radion guy who wants to join CAP just to do comms in a back room?  Or a softwear engineer willing to handle Wing's website?  Surely his mohawk won't get in the way of his duties, and he won't be seen by the public during his duties, so it seems silly to turn away his talent.

Wearing a uniform requires certain conformities. Noone would be able to walk into a recruiters office with mohawk and say that they would want to keep it, they be laughed out of there. Beards are not an issue for CAP, because a uniform is available that permits it.

Overall, I think some diversity is a good thing. But extremes aren't appropriate. There can be professional appearance with a beard just as much as without one. Mohawks, waist-long hair, and earrings don't lend themselves to that.

You're right, it's all about professional appearance.  Through your responses, you've made it clear that regardless of someone's talents, if they won't meet certain appearance standards, you're willing to deny them membership.

So, it seems there is some value in appearance standards.

Now we come to the fun part - what should those standard be?

We can try to take a tips from private industry, but if so, where to chose from?  Disney doesn't allow beards.  Google allows pretty much anything.  Lots of "standards" out there.

We could go the public service route, where the vast majority of Police and EMS folks are clean shaven with short hair.  (there are some interesting court cases out there trying to get firefighters to have hair as long as the women).

It seems the most logical choice to get our appearance standard from is USAF.  The guys who pay us.  The guys whose uniform we wear.  The guys whose uniform we are trying to emulate as close as possible with the Corporate Service Dress.

And USAF doesn't allow beards with its unifoms.

So we're back to - if Mr Long Hair can't play, why can Mr. Beard? They are both valid, talented potential members, and they both look unprofessional from a USAF point of view. 

If we truly want to play the "we're not USAF" card, why play it all the way, ditch the military grade structure and put everyone in gold shirts and blazers?

And who knows, maybe that the right way to go.  Most of our members don't have a military background - they come from civilian/corporate America.  That's what they are most comfortable with.

[thefischNX01]

I will define "Neatly Trimmed" as: close to the skin with clear 'borders'.  "The beard will not continue down the front of the neck, and the hair will not be longer than 1/4 of an inch."

Borders are a clear line where facial hair stops and begins.  It should follow the natural contours of the face, and there should be no patches of hair beyond these borders. 

[SarDragon]

I will define "Neatly Trimmed" as: close to the skin with clear 'boarders'.  "The beard will not continue down the front of the neck, and the hair will not be longer than 1/4 of an inch."

Boarders are a clear line where facial hair stops and begins.  It should follow the natural contours of the face, and there should be no patches of hair beyond these boarders. 

A quarter of an inch is hard to maintain. One-half to three-quarters of an inch would be a better standard. Mine is currently about an inch long, a length that was permissible WIWOAD, and presents a well-groomed appearance.

[MIKE]

C.3.n. Hair/Facial Hair The goal is for men's hair to be neat and clean, not touch the collar, and be away
from the ears. Beards, sideburns, or mustaches if worn, shall be well groomed and
neatly trimmed at all times in order not to present a ragged appearance. No portion
of a mustache will extend below the lipline of the upper lip. Handlebar mustaches
or other eccentric styles are not appropriate while in uniform. Full and partial
beards, van dykes, and goatees are authorized. In uniform, patches and spotty
clumps of facial hair are not considered beards and are not authorized. The bulk of
the beard (distance that the mass of facial hair protrudes from the skin on the face)
shall not exceed 1 inch. The length of individual hair shall be limited to 1½ inches.
The wearing of beards and mustaches shall not interfere with the operation of
oxygen masks, gas masks, or other safety/survival gear. As such, the wearing of
beards and moustaches may be prohibited for those participating in certain
operational missions as deemed necessary by the Director or a Coast Guard
Commanding officer supervising that mission. For uniformity during public
appearances as a distinctive element of the Auxiliary, personnel assigned to a
Ceremonial Honor Guard shall be clean-shaven. Women's hair should not be below
the collar or extend below the eyebrows when the hat is removed.

[Eclipse]

I will define "Neatly Trimmed" as: close to the skin with clear 'boarders'.  "The beard will not continue down the front of the neck, and the hair will not be longer than 1/4 of an inch."

Boarders are a clear line where facial hair stops and begins.  It should follow the natural contours of the face, and there should be no patches of hair beyond these boarders. 

A quarter of an inch is hard to maintain. One-half to three-quarters of an inch would be a better standard. Mine is currently about an inch long, a length that was permissible WIWOAD, and presents a well-groomed appearance.

I think you see my point - all or none is easy.  "neat" is a subjective term open to causing fights we don't need.

[PhotogPilot]

I will define "Neatly Trimmed" as: close to the skin with clear 'boarders'.  "The beard will not continue down the front of the neck, and the hair will not be longer than 1/4 of an inch."

Boarders are a clear line where facial hair stops and begins.  It should follow the natural contours of the face, and there should be no patches of hair beyond these boarders. 

"Boarders" are people who pay to live and eat in your house. Do you mean "borders"?


Sorry, it's late, I'm tired and being taken over by the sarcasm demon. Help me Linda Blair!!!!

[SarDragon]

[redacted; you already read it once]

IIRC, that closely resembles the last guidance from the Navy, and is even more liberal that what I posted above. It is a fair standard, and one that is easy to meet full time. My current 'stache probably violates that guidance a little, but no one has complained yet. I'll fix it up before I teach SLS next month.

[SarDragon]

I will define "Neatly Trimmed" as: close to the skin with clear 'boarders'.  "The beard will not continue down the front of the neck, and the hair will not be longer than 1/4 of an inch."

Boarders are a clear line where facial hair stops and begins.  It should follow the natural contours of the face, and there should be no patches of hair beyond these boarders. 

"Boarders" are people who pay to live and eat in your house. Do you mean "borders"?


Sorry, it's late, I'm tired and being taken over by the sarcasm demon. Help me Linda Blair!!!!

Nice guys woulda just sent a PM! 

[PhotogPilot]

I will define "Neatly Trimmed" as: close to the skin with clear 'boarders'.  "The beard will not continue down the front of the neck, and the hair will not be longer than 1/4 of an inch."

Boarders are a clear line where facial hair stops and begins.  It should follow the natural contours of the face, and there should be no patches of hair beyond these boarders. 

"Boarders" are people who pay to live and eat in your house. Do you mean "borders"?


Sorry, it's late, I'm tired and being taken over by the sarcasm demon. Help me Linda Blair!!!!

Nice guys woulda just sent a PM! 

But that wouldn't have had the comedic effect.

[Flying Pig]

I didnt read all four pages of posts.....

But could we stay away from the beards and goatees.  They look terrible in uniform. Thats my former Marine-self talking.

[shorning]

I didnt read all four pages of posts.....

But could we stay away from the beards and goatees.  They look terrible in uniform. Thats my former Marine-self talking.

Okay...and now you get to go back and read the conversation.  Having skipped the rest of the commentary, you can't just through a statement like that out there.

I don't see a problem when worn in the uniforms for which they are allowed.  Mountain out of a mole hill people... 

[Flying Pig]

No Sir, I dont think I need to go back and read it all.  I am responding to the origional post.  I dont think beards belong in CAP.   You have to draw the line somewhere and that line may as well be the military line.  CAP already make numerous uniform exceptions as it is.