My letter regarding the USAF ban of locs

[drappedup]

Ummmm ,im not real sure how to respond because I can't pinpoint the tone...but my concern with the locs reg is NOT individuality, my concern is fairness. There are locs that can be styled and within regulation just like braid extensions which ARE ALLOWED AND IS CLEARLY STATED IN THE REG, so why should a woman with PROFESSIONAL, WELL KEPT DREADS be punished because the person who made this ban hears the word dreadlocks and assumes this is how all loc wearers look:

but hers look like this (yes i know this particular style is not within AF regulation but these locs are professional and well kept):

http://www.khamitkinks.com/images/Twists/Locs2.jpg

......that is clearly far and beyond 3 inches. The reg in regard to bulk is clear on why it is put into place........for headgear purposes........the above picture would clearly interfere with whatever various headgear the military member was required to wear. If they made some sort of exception just for people who wanted to have neat dreadlocks, I'd honestly find that ridiculous....because if I'm having to suffer with certain aspects of the hair regulations, why should a specific hairstyle get leeway simply because it happens to be a style someone wants to wear? I mean, it's not a necessity. That's kind of like me trying to fight the restrictions on make up.....is it a necessity I'm granted to wear such and such? No.....

I don't mean to seem so negative, but I really don't see a legit reason. I think it'd be an entirely different case if braids/cornrows weren't allowed, which they are.

 

[naturalgyrl5199]

I am going to play devils advocate for a hot second.....but first i want to say:

1. Congrats! One person CAN make a difference!

2. it sounds like a blanked regulation (out of ignorance of course) for them to ban dreads in order to leave out those funky looking dreads at the expense unfortunately of banning the neat ones...

3. Big BUT....The first thing I think of is how it can be a safety issue....In COMBAT....Now...I can imagine that they want you to be able to keep your helmet on in the case of a firefight...if its not sitting on properly, your head is not properly protected and if you die due to head trauma...and it may be found that your helmut was not on properly because of your hair....of course your family is going to sue.....

Same for long hair...but in that case (very extreme...I think)....in up close combat it could be pulled at your disadvantage.... (Please feel free {USAF folk and vets to school a sista and improve my understanding here!!!!)

Do you know how many NFL players with that beautiful long hair and sexy dreads get their hair pulled? Sure its not done FREQUENTLY out of professional courtesy but hey an insurgent has no professional courtesy at all

But Is the ban fair...? no!

It should be re-visited thoroughly....and if still banned....better, more specific reasons should be given....However if it was me...I'd cut my hair if needed to protect myself from ANY POSSIBLE problems.....Because I know that helmet or whatever head protection you get needs to sit securely...and I'm not gonna let my hairstyle cause or contribute to my death....Gotta enough going on being in the USAF itself....Barely like my husband pulling my hair....much less a stranger when my life is in danger.......Yes this is worst case scenario but they have to take precautions---however vague they seem to be....
JMHO....I am tip-toeing out of here

 

[naturalgyrl5199]

......that is clearly far and beyond 3 inches. The reg in regard to bulk is clear on why it is put into place........for headgear purposes........the above picture would clearly interfere with whatever various headgear the military member was required to wear. If they made some sort of exception just for people who wanted to have neat dreadlocks, I'd honestly find that ridiculous....because if I'm having to suffer with certain aspects of the hair regulations, why should a specific hairstyle get leeway simply because it happens to be a style someone wants to wear? I mean, it's not a necessity. That's kind of like me trying to fight the restrictions on make up.....is it a necessity I'm granted to wear such and such? No.....

I don't mean to seem so negative, but I really don't see a legit reason. I think it'd be an entirely different case if braids/cornrows weren't allowed, which they are.

I commented before I read your post but that was my exact sentiment when I was commenting....this is a very good point...which is why they just ban it all for women to make it easier on themselves....maybe they should say its not appropriate
"if you can't wear proper headgear within code."

 

[Miss AJ]

but hers look like this (yes i know this particular style is not within AF regulation but these locs are professional and well kept):

I just used this picture as an example of neat locs, i am well aware this particular style is NOT within the bulk regulation, but the locs themselves are neat and well groomed.

 

[naturalgyrl5199]

Why did you re-post those words so HUGE? I read it right!!!!! erplexed

Yeah those dreads are beautiful..

I understand the fairness issue you mention OP.....At least I hope I am.....Neat vs. unkempt dreadlocks right? Her very neat dreads should be allowed if she was able to wear her headgear within code is what you are saying right....?

Hopefully, some of the language can be changed or specified....But I think I simply don't see it any more problematic than that...poor language and it being very outdated......don't give up though.....

 

[ojthomas]

I am in the USAF and me and my supervisor were talking about locs I was like we can't wear locks and she said yes you can as long as they are neat and clean. She is Caucasian and would call anyone out not in regs.

Just looked the dress and appearance reg and it states dreadlocks are not authorized.

 

[ojthomas]

I know a Sgt who has her hair in locs they used to give her s*it about it but not anymore she rocks it and has rocked it for a couple years. Her locs are professional, kept neat and is less than the 3 in bulk. Maybe a person can go to MEO on discriminatory charges

My rebuttal would be it says nothing about sister locs, and remember regs have different meanings depending who is interpreting the reg.

 

[Marhia]

My aunt has had dreadlocs for years and she is about to put on Master.