Standards for "Way out" appearances

Started by Hawk200, November 03, 2019, 07:39:39 pm

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hawk200

I know that the alternate uniforms are the wear for those not meeting the typical military grooming styles, but was curious as to thoughts on "other" appearances.

I'm taking about things like dreads, alternate hair coloring (such as purple, lime green, neon orange, etc.), beards to the middle of the chest, multiple piercings, ear guages, tattoos on face/neck/hands, and other things things that would be considered body modification.

Have my own views at the moment (which may change if logical counter to it is presented,) but was curious as to other views.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk


PHall

Are they a "productive" member? If they are then what's the problem?

Eclipse

November 03, 2019, 08:07:17 pm #2 Last Edit: November 03, 2019, 08:12:20 pm by Eclipse
CAPM 39-1, starting on page 18, indicates that the kinds of things you're mentioning
(gauges, ornamentation, excessive tattoos, bizarre hair color, etc.) would be verboten
regardless of which uniform a respective member wears.

Long beards and hair is probably going to be a "get over it" as NHQ has been issuing
religious waivers for the beards, especially, the last year or two, so unless it's a hygiene issue
there's really no standard.

I agree to an extent that if the member is otherwise productive then tie should go to the runner,
but there's no point in pretending that the image CAP wants to foster as an organization isn't
conservative in appearance and military in form, and members who are too outside those lines,
especially in public-facing or cadet orientated roles will compromise that intention.

As is constantly made clear, CAP isn't for everyone.



etodd

Quote from: Eclipse on November 03, 2019, 08:07:17 pm
CAPM 39-1, starting on page 18, indicates that the kinds of things you're mentioning
(gauges, ornamentation, excessive tattoos, bizarre hair color, etc.) would be verboten
regardless of which uniform a respective member wears.


"Excessive and bizarre" by whose interpretation?  Our 85 year old members, or the 25 year olds?  Poorly written regs that leave so much subjective. LOL
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO - ESO

sUAS MP - sUAS Instructor - sUAS Check Pilot

PHall

Quote from: etodd on November 03, 2019, 09:28:30 pm
Quote from: Eclipse on November 03, 2019, 08:07:17 pm
CAPM 39-1, starting on page 18, indicates that the kinds of things you're mentioning
(gauges, ornamentation, excessive tattoos, bizarre hair color, etc.) would be verboten
regardless of which uniform a respective member wears.


"Excessive and bizarre" by whose interpretation?  Our 85 year old members, or the 25 year olds?  Poorly written regs that leave so much subjective. LOL


CAPM39-1 Paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 are pretty clear. Not a whole lot of interpretation needed.

TheSkyHornet

Quote from: PHall on November 03, 2019, 10:52:38 pm
Quote from: etodd on November 03, 2019, 09:28:30 pm
Quote from: Eclipse on November 03, 2019, 08:07:17 pm
CAPM 39-1, starting on page 18, indicates that the kinds of things you're mentioning
(gauges, ornamentation, excessive tattoos, bizarre hair color, etc.) would be verboten
regardless of which uniform a respective member wears.


"Excessive and bizarre" by whose interpretation?  Our 85 year old members, or the 25 year olds?  Poorly written regs that leave so much subjective. LOL


CAPM39-1 Paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 are pretty clear. Not a whole lot of interpretation needed.


I think this is a biggie that gets kicked aside by units:
"Additionally, even if not in Corporate-style uniform and wearing civilian attire, members are expected to comply with these guidelines when at CAP events or on official CAP duty."

Don't look like you just got out of bed.
Appear to have some level of hygiene.
No pink hair.
Make sure birds aren't nesting in your beard.
Cover up your tattoo sleeves.
Ditch the nose ring.
No gold grills in your mouth.

Please don't look like a meth addict.

Flying Pig

I denied membership for a guy who wanted to be a Chaplain and was the chaplain for the local biker "clubs".  Gauged ears, tats on his hands and neck.  It was a fairly easy decision for me.   He said he was going to appeal to Wing.  I never heard back.  Its fairly simple.

Spam



Since you ask specifically about dreads, we supported our encampment staff this past summer for taking a guy to the base barber to removing a set of locks.


I did have a Group/CC, back in the 80s in FLWG, who as a retired USAF SNCO had tats all down his arms. When Rodney got remarried to a young thing in her 40s, she made him go get a modest swimsuit tattooed onto/over the buxom Filipina on his arm...  ;D



I thought the below from Hurlburt Field captured the AFI appearance guidance pretty well, in a humorous fashion:
https://www.hurlburt.af.mil/News/Commentaries/Display/Article/206286/dress-and-behave-for-success-use-afi-36-2903/


V/r
Spam










Gunsotsu

Ma Blue's tattoo policy is much more tolerant than CAPs. It's olds being olds. But these discussions trying to shame what doesn't fit your definition of decent or professional are so full of holes. Dreads are BAD! But the morbidly obese member in corporate, that's ok because they're trying.

So hilarious that the mods are so quick to pull the trigger on benign discussion, but this nonsense can. Keep. COMING. UP!

Shut it down.

Spam

Quote from: Gunsotsu on November 04, 2019, 06:36:18 pm
Ma Blue's tattoo policy is much more tolerant than CAPs. It's olds being olds. But these discussions trying to shame what doesn't fit your definition of decent or professional are so full of holes. Dreads are BAD! But the morbidly obese member in corporate, that's ok because they're trying.

So hilarious that the mods are so quick to pull the trigger on benign discussion, but this nonsense can. Keep. COMING. UP!

Shut it down.


I should clarify - the guy with dreads I mentioned was in USAF style and thought he could pin them up.

Sorry for the confusion.

V/r
Spam


Майор Хаткевич

Quote from: Gunsotsu on November 04, 2019, 06:36:18 pm
Ma Blue's tattoo policy is much more tolerant than CAPs. It's olds being olds. But these discussions trying to shame what doesn't fit your definition of decent or professional are so full of holes. Dreads are BAD! But the morbidly obese member in corporate Air Force Style Uniforms, that's ok because they're trying.

So hilarious that the mods are so quick to pull the trigger on benign discussion, but this nonsense can. Keep. COMING. UP!

Shut it down.



I got this fixed for you.

Hawk200

Was just kind of wondering as to thoughts on it, didn't even think about the regs on it.

There's a few people that I think would make good contributing members, but they fall into the "way out" appearance I mentioned.

Regardless of how I feel, against regs is against regs.

Thanks for the replies and pointers.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk


Fester

You asked for thoughts?

I think the rewrite of 39-1 is LONNNNNG past due.  And I'm hoping it has more leniency within the standards for those wearing Corporates. 

What good reason do we have to turn away someone who is wanting to volunteer their time, money and energy SIMPLY because they have tats or gauges or pink hair?
1stLt, CAP
Squadron CC
Group CPO
Eaker - 1996

Eclipse

People who change their appearance to be radically different then the mid-point of societal norms
do so for a reason - to be "separate from the crowd".

That's a purposeful decision, and choices have consequences, especially when the choices you
make were specifically intended to make you stand out and be different.



Fester

Quote from: Eclipse on November 05, 2019, 02:34:32 am
People who change their appearance to be radically different then the mid-point of societal norms
do so for a reason - to be "separate from the crowd".

That's a purposeful decision, and choices have consequences, especially when the choices you
make were specifically intended to make you stand out and be different.


Who's idea of the "mid-point" of "societal norms?"

And what is it about that uniqueness that prevents them from being valuable members of our Organization?
1stLt, CAP
Squadron CC
Group CPO
Eaker - 1996

Gunsotsu

Quote from: FesterWho's idea of the "mid-point" of "societal norms?"


Olds. Olds idea of "societal norms."

THRAWN

Quote from: Fester on November 05, 2019, 03:24:51 am
Quote from: Eclipse on November 05, 2019, 02:34:32 am
People who change their appearance to be radically different then the mid-point of societal norms
do so for a reason - to be "separate from the crowd".

That's a purposeful decision, and choices have consequences, especially when the choices you
make were specifically intended to make you stand out and be different.


Who's idea of the "mid-point" of "societal norms?"

And what is it about that uniqueness that prevents them from being valuable members of our Organization?


The organization has rules and standards. If you do not or will not meet those standards, find another way to serve. They can be the best thing since squeezable ketchup, but if they don't want to conform this isn't the place for them.
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016

Dwight Dutton

Quote from: Fester on November 05, 2019, 02:05:50 amYou asked for thoughts?

I think the rewrite of 39-1 is LONNNNNG past due.  And I'm hoping it has more leniency within the standards for those wearing Corporates. 

What good reason do we have to turn away someone who is wanting to volunteer their time, money and energy SIMPLY because they have tats or gauges or pink hair?


Fully agree.  The corporate uniforms exist specifically to accommodate this.    The standards should be about what they are for wearing anyone elses corporate uniform.

USAF standards are very well defined and beyond debate, at least here.

Toad1168

Quote from: Dwight Dutton on November 05, 2019, 04:02:37 pm
Quote from: Fester on November 05, 2019, 02:05:50 amYou asked for thoughts?

I think the rewrite of 39-1 is LONNNNNG past due.  And I'm hoping it has more leniency within the standards for those wearing Corporates. 

What good reason do we have to turn away someone who is wanting to volunteer their time, money and energy SIMPLY because they have tats or gauges or pink hair?


Fully agree.  The corporate uniforms exist specifically to accommodate this.    The standards should be about what they are for wearing anyone elses corporate uniform.

USAF standards are very well defined and beyond debate, at least here.

This statement alone opens up a wide variety of standards.  Many private companies have standards that do not allow what was described above.
Toad

NovemberWhiskey

November 05, 2019, 11:36:12 pm #19 Last Edit: November 05, 2019, 11:41:54 pm by NovemberWhiskey
Quote from: THRAWN on November 05, 2019, 12:50:08 pm
Quote from: Fester on November 05, 2019, 03:24:51 am
And what is it about that uniqueness that prevents them from being valuable members of our Organization?


The organization has rules and standards. If you do not or will not meet those standards, find another way to serve. They can be the best thing since squeezable ketchup, but if they don't want to conform this isn't the place for them.


I don't think that's really an answer, is it? I understand the regulation says what it does. It says, for example, that someone who has a sleeve tattoo on their arm to the wrist cannot conform to CAP's grooming and appearance standards for either USAF-style or corporate uniforms and therefore that person cannot be a member.

The question posed is: why is that regulation necessary if it excludes people who would otherwise be beneficial to our organization? The answer cannot be an appeal to military standards as the USAF now permits such tattoos (ref. AFI 36-2903).