• ⏰ Welcome, Guest! You are viewing only 2 out of 27 total forums. Register today to view more, then Subscribe to view all forums, submit posts, reply to posts, create new threads, view photos, access private messages, change your avatar, create a photo album, customize your profile, and possibly be selected as our next Feature of the Month.

This ISH right HERE.... Utter BS

⏳ Limited Access:

Register today to view all forum posts.

Register Log in
Medium hair length is allowed, except if the bulk of hair protrudes more than two inches away from scalp? So basically you can't have natural hair..because that is the way it grows out of our scalp. :nono:
 
I am appalled that these ridiculous guidelines would even be put in place for anyone willing to sacrifice their life for this ridiculous country.

I love and respect anyone in the armed forces. Shame on them.
 
I am in the Army and have been for 11 years now and just did my BC so when I saw this I was like lol. I am doing wigs right now but as a military member, we made a choice to work in a career that can dictate our appearance versus being a civilian where your appearance is a little more flexible so I will adapt to the new changes.
 
Wow that is utter BS.
... but weaves and wigs are authorized
 
I get that when you join the army you have to maintain a 'utilitarian' appearance. This is why when men join they must shave their heads. Frankly it would make more sense to have every woman who joins get a buzz cut rather than nit pick about how they wear the hair they have. What is utilitarian about a wig or a weave? Both can be snatched. So can long hair, so I am not getting how they are even trying to avoid flat out racism here. There is no valid rationalization behind these regulations which read: big kinky hair needs to be cut down to 1-2 inches, if not invest in some fake hair.

Why should I be surprised though? It is 2014 racism is over. Right:rolleyes:.
 
Last edited:
1. In the early 1980's they had similar rules stating that you could not have more than 2 braids, the "bulk" description hasn't changed much. Back then brothers/sisters with fro's would pat them down.

2. I agree this is bull-sh!t.

3. In the 1990's they included the phrase..."Those who's hair does not part naturally...."

4. This makes me revisit my other statement SO, we can be gay, bi- and that's OK no need to hide who you are, BUT OMG, be a BLACK woman with some tightly coiled/z-coiled hair and you'd better hid that shtuf!

5. When deployed I was amazed at the # of chicks who wore wigs in the desert, and when I returned home I was also made aware of the growing # of women who wore wigs to "be accepted" while hiding their natual hair.

6. THERE ARE and WERE many who pushed the regulations on acceptable hair styles; NOW THOSE were the ones who I checked (corrected). Yes, they made it hard on the rest of US.

1980-2014 and the armed forces are still struggling with the existance of natural black hair.
 
Last edited:
dede1129 said:
I am in the Army and have been for 11 years now and just did my BC so when I saw this I was like lol. I am doing wigs right now but as a military member, we made a choice to work in a career that can dictate our appearance versus being a civilian where your appearance is a little more flexible so I will adapt to the new changes.
Click to expand...

I've been in the Air Force for 7 years now and agree with you wholeheartedly. As service women, we raised our hands and took an oath to serve and protect. We knew when we commissioned/enlisted that we would not be afforded the freedom of wearing whatever clothes we wanted, our hair any way we felt or fire engine red nail polish. That was a choice we made -- no hard feelings here.

I foresee Air Force Instruction following the Army's lead…and when they do…I'm no stranger to adapting and overcoming.
 
dede1129 said:
I am in the Army and have been for 11 years now and just did my BC so when I saw this I was like lol. I am doing wigs right now but as a military member, we made a choice to work in a career that can dictate our appearance versus being a civilian where your appearance is a little more flexible so I will adapt to the new changes.
Click to expand...

Jace032000 said:
I've been in the Air Force for 7 years now and agree with you wholeheartedly. As service women, we raised our hands and took an oath to serve and protect. We knew when we commissioned/enlisted that we would not be afforded the freedom of wearing whatever clothes we wanted, our hair any way we felt or fire engine red nail polish. That was a choice we made -- no hard feelings here.

I foresee Air Force Instruction following the Army's lead…and when they do…I'm no stranger to adapting and overcoming.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on some of your points. I swore the oath to serve my country and follow the standards that were in place. HOWEVER, I did not enlist to have someone tell me that my natural hair is not good enough to be worn out. How is a wig tactical on ANY level? It can be snatched off easily, donning a gas mask is not a reality. I can see regulating nail polish colors, length of nails, even physical fitness standards but how are you going to put a regulation in place that BLATENTLY targets black women? So kinky twists are not authorized why? Most of the women who wear kinky twists pull them back in a nice tight bun and 9 times out of 10 they look neater and more put together than the women with straight hair (White/Asian or other) who pull or clip their hair back and have a load of fly-aways and untucked strands. I don't understand and I am soooo glad that I separated when I did.
 
Another AF vet checking in here...

I remember AFI's similar to this when I was in. I was one of the ones who definitely pushed the limits. I rocked Ceasar cuts and curly extensions so big that my cap/beret barely sat on top of that mug. :look: But I did my job well and received various awards as a result.

I pushed the limits primarily because I hated that it was geared toward Black women. Black men could get shaving waivers when I was in but there were no such waivers for Black women. People thought twists were dreadlocks and tried to check Black women. :spinning: I do hope that other branches plan to allow for some sort of waiver for this.
 
Ivonnovi said:
1. In the early 1980's they had similar rules stating that you could not have more than 2 braids, the "bulk" description hasn't changed much. Back then brothers/sisters with fro's would pat them down.

2. I agree this is bull-sh!t.

3. In the 1990's they included the phrase..."Those who's hair does not part naturally...."

4. This makes me revisit my other statement SO, we can be gay, bi- and that's OK no need to hide who you are, BUT OMG, be a BLACK woman with some tightly coiled/z-coiled hair and you'd better hid that shtuf!

5. When deployed I was amazed at the # of chicks who wore wigs in the desert, and when I returned home I was also made aware of the growing # of women who wore wigs to "be accepted" while hiding their natual hair.

6. THERE ARE and WERE many who pushed the regulations on acceptable hair styles; NOW THOSE were the ones who I checked (corrected). Yes, they made it hard on the rest of US.

1980-2014 and the armed forces are still struggling with the existance of natural black hair.
Click to expand...


Don't they have more serious things to consider, make amendments to and conquer? I'd rather die for my hair, than an organization or people that cannot accept me as i am in my natural state....Oh and i don't believe people are born gay.
 
My husband was AF, thus I still live in an AF community. This is crazy! You give & give up enough, you shouldn't have to give up your hair too.
 
Oh really? Well, maybe they should take a cue because....

From dreadlocks...
A-female-Israeli-soldier--010.jpg


To high messy buns or long cascading ponytails....
images


To red henna-dyed kinky coils messily drawn back....
ethiopian_jews_soldier-300x194.jpg


To headcoverings... etc.
Ester-2-195x293.jpg



images


images



Even these are allowable

images
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top