Jump to content

Marine Corps to change Female Marine Covers/Hats


uplandmod
 Share

Recommended Posts

Uniform board convenes annually. And General Amos is known to make decisions despite the opinion of the troops (note the sleeve rolling/down policy change, which was greatly opposed but implemented anyway)

 

Board members identities are kept confidential. If anyone paid attention to last years board, they'd know the board members were definitely selected on an agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And before I get branded by those who think that I'm just one of the "old codgers" who doesn't like change...

 

When I was on the Commandant's Staff at the Naval Academy, the Superintendent changed regulations to allow midshipmen to no longer wear neckties during the academic week. Some of the old alumni were AGHAST that he did that. The wept, had gnashing of teeth, pounded their breast about the loss of tradition...and really, I was all for it. What's the point of wearing ties to class? The grades of my 150 midshipmen directly in my charge did not change in the least when they stopped wearing ties. And the midshipmen were a lot more comfortable, particularly in the non air conditioned buildings. These same midshipmen are now off fighting for their country and some are on their third and fourth tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. No one cares that they didn't wear ties to class.

 

However, when I was back at the Academy this last summer, they had recently shifted over to having the female midshipmen wearing male covers. The idea behind this was that they would all appear "uniform" when going to formation and such. But there was one minor problem with this...you can pick out the females because many of them have these strange "protrusions" on their chests and wear their hats differently because their long hair is up in a bun. So yes...they still stood out because the hats were worn differently and their bodies were shaped differently. So what was the point? Most of the people I talked to didn't care for the change, and a lot of the females didn't like wearing the male hats...but it was implemented anyway for "their own good".

 

Ironically, we had an incident at the Academy while I was on staff that was completely the opposite, and causes one to pause to think about the veracity of the "sameness" argument. We hat 30 companies of roughly 150 midshipmen each at the Academy. In charge of those companies were 30 Navy and Marine Corps officers (I was one of them) as well as 30 Navy and Marine Corps senior enlisted. (I had a Marine Master Sergeant.) Those 30 companies all independently selected, through various processes (there was no set way of doing it) their own midshipman company commanders. Some voted with their peers, others (like mine) did interviews and then the company officer and senior enlisted picked the person. Regardless, it was all completely independent and the result was a list of 30 first-class midshipmen who were in charge of their companies. Well, this one semester, we did the selection process and it turns out that there were 29 white males and 1 Hispanic male (with light skin, to boot) selected, independently, to serve as company commanders. Technically, in the "uniform" argument, this is GREAT - they all look the same. BUT...the Superintendent wouldn't approve the slate of proposed commanders because they looked TOO similar. The last thing he wanted was a bunch of "appearing" white males as company commanders. So we were forced to go back through our processes and select non-white-males as company commanders, a quota of one non-white-male company commander for every four companies. This way, they would "appear" diverse.

 

Se we selected people who may not have been the best fit for the job (not bad performers - I had a terrific female candidate, but she was a varsity soccer player and her team schedule wouldn't allow her to do the job) simply to make it so everyone did not look similar.

 

Yes, in case you're wondering, this is how many people in the military do become cynical...one hand says one thing while the other says something completely different...

 

And if talking hands don't scare ya, I don't know what will...

 

:D

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I believe you missed the main points of the article.

 

1) “However, similar doesn't have to mean identical”

2) “What makes sense is letting the soldiers speak for themselves about whether or not to adopt a more unisex appearance — which is what the Uniform Board appears to be doing in the case of the hat options.”

3) "Females are perfectly happy with their uniform, as are males. It would be like trying to fix something that's not broken."

4) It is highly unlikely that the cover will be changed.

 

Regarding your statement the proposed cover is stupid, is it because the cover is similar to the women’s cover? The women’s cover was modeled after the early USMC cover worn by Marines such as Daly. So therefore, you are calling the early USMC cover stupid. Correct? The proposed new women’s cover is modeled after the current men’s cover. People are saying this one is too manly for women so in a sense this one is stupid too? If that is the case, then I guess anything they make that a woman is issued is stupid by your thinking? So women can't wear pants because men do? Isn't that an old and invalidated argument? There seems to be double standards for sure if a man can wear the men’s cover but a woman can't. Conversely if men and women wear the same hat it's stupid? Why is it stupid? Because a woman is wearing it too?

 

If there is going to be a unisex cover, then it has to be one of these two or a brand new model. However, as it was mentioned in the article, it is highly unlikely that there will be any changes to the Marines cover so this argument is moot.

...Kat

.

 

 

I didn't miss a thing, actually. You, however, are mixing my responses and missing the point.

 

My reply you quote was in response to the previous comment regarding a double standard. There is no double standard with respect to the arguments against the new proposed cap. Men look better in clothes designed for men, and women look better in clothes designed for women, and that includes uniforms. That's not a double standard, it's just a fact.

 

With respect to the descriptive "stupid" on which you want to focus, I said the hat LOOKS stupid on the head of a man. And yes, I don't care who wore a cap like it almost a hundred years ago, it looks stupid on the head of a man today. Fairly simple, really.

 

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So because I never served in the military then I can’t voice an opinion? Well, to turn the tables, you have never been a woman so then are you not qualified to speak about women.

 

This original thread and article has nothing to do with whether or not women can serve in combat units. It also is NOT stating the changes are required for women to be placed in combat roles. The article regarding the Marine Corps cover has to do with making the uniforms more “uniform” for the men and women. The articles stated “movement to make female uniforms more similar”. It does NOT state the uniforms will be identical. You are reading WAY too much into this to state that “we have to do it to make females feel more equal”. That is ludicrous. Your response is your own opinion and it not based on anything stated in the article. This is a quote from the article "Females are perfectly happy with their uniform, as are males. It would be like trying to fix something that's not broken." These are PROPOSALS by a uniform board that meets annually NOT anything that is required to happen.

 

A friend on here sent me a link to an article regarding a female Canadian captain who served a tour on the front line in Afghanistan. “A priority in any infantry unit is to develop team cohesion. The traditional way to do this is to train, eat and sleep as a unit. But when Canadian female soldiers were first placed on the front line, they were segregated from the men. It didn't work. Now they are mixed in together, and sleep in the same dorm.” Here is a link to the entire article if anyone would like to read it.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24622762

 

I do not know for sure why but I wonder if the thought of making the uniforms “similar” NOT exactly alike is along the same lines as what the Canadian military has done for soldiers on the front lines. MAYBE they are trying to develop team cohesion in their own way.

 

In closing, I would like to reiterate what I stated in Post #31.

 

I would like to add that we are only discussing the proposed changes. We have no voice on the matter. I believe only the Marines currently serving can decide whether or not to adopt the proposed changes.

 

...Kat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man - lot of people have a lot of strong opinions on this topic it seems. Kat brings up a few excellent counters, and that's great.

 

My feeling on this and a lot of the other recent uniform related debacles and wastes (i.e. -- the Army's beret and dress blue switch, the Marine Corps new "Charlies" Friday rules, the Navy and their seemingly unending battles with fashion) is that it really is an absolutely criminal waste of resources to force-feed our military personnel new uniforms that serve no practical purpose.

 

I collect service Alpha coats from World War II, and if it weren't for Dress Blues, probably never would have enlisted in the Marine Corps at all, but at what point does a nation claiming to be on the brink of bankruptcy decide that R&D into what type of hat we want to make our armed forces wear for ceremonial occasions ought to be put on the back burner for a while?

 

As a Marine, nearly ALL of my time was spent in cammies (utilities) or PT gear, and since the former is what Marines wear in combat, by all means, make sure that stuff is top notch, but the dress blues and service uniforms that every Marine is required to maintain are a huge expense (even with the uniform allowance) and an even bigger waste considering 95% of the FMF and 99% of the Reserves never, ever wear the things.

 

Tradition, discipline, sure -- but if the American people want to turn it into a political issue, then the issue ought to be why in hell are we making underpaid Lance Corporals maintain four sets of Service and Dress uniforms when they could be spending money on effective combat training and equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good God Almighty, Chesty must be turning over in his grave.

 

My opinion, simply:

 

The new cover looks like s??t.

 

It is a waste of time, effort and money, expecially when money is short.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trust me, we can find better uses for 8 million dollars. We could barely afford sand bags at the end of the fiscal year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I would like to add that we are only discussing the proposed changes. We have no voice on the matter. I believe only the Marines currently serving can decide whether or not to adopt the proposed changes.

 

Actually...you have more say in these uniform changes than the active duty Marines do.

 

They get to fill out a questionnaire. Experience has shown that the results of the questionnaire are often not taken into consideration, and instead, the people in charge what they want to do anyway.

 

Being that we live in the country that we do, you and I, as civilians, are free to write to our representatives in the House and Senate and tell them what we think of the idea. Ask them to justify the $8 million expenditure when we are teetering towards another government shutdown over funds. Depending on your representatives, this may or may not get any traction. I can say, from my experience, that if someone on the House or Senate Armed Forces Committee were to put some heat on General Amos (who is already under legal duress for other issues) to explain the need for this expenditure of money, this concept would be zapped and never heard of again.

 

My thoughts...

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The change has been approved, and the male dress frame cap (to be slightly modified and known as the UNIVERSAL CAP) is the new standard for females too, as of this Dec. 13 order:

 

"A. AGENDA ITEM A: UNIVERSAL DRESS AND SERVICE CAPS

(1) RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT THE CURRENT MALE SERVICE AND DRESS FRAME CAP AS THE UNIVERSAL CAP FOR ALL MARINES (WITH SOME MODIFICATIONS TO MAKE IT MORE COMFORTABLE BUT MAINTAIN THE SAME DISTINCTIVE APPEARANCE).
CMC DECISION: APPROVED. FEMALE MARINES ARE AUTHORIZED TO WEAR THE CURRENT MALE DRESS AND SERVICE CAPS IMMEDIATELY, BUT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO OWN THEM UNTIL THE MANDATORY POSSESSION DATE AS DETAILED BELOW."

 

The universal cap will be issued to female recruits starting April 2014 and the wear out date for the current female cap is May 2017.

 

The same order announcing the cap changes, also has some new rules for female Marine's hair:

 

(2) THE BELOW CHANGES TO REF B ARE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. PARAGRAPHS 1004.7B(1)(B) AND 1004.7B(1)(B)1:"(B) HAIRSTYLES ... EXAMPLES OF HAIRSTYLES CONSIDERED TO BE FADDISH OR EXAGGERATED AND THUS NOT AUTHORIZED FOR WEAR IN UNIFORM ARE (THIS LIST IS NOT ALL-INCLUSIVE); LOCKS AND TWISTS (NOT INCLUDING FRENCH ROLLS/TWISTS), HAIR SCULPTING (ECCENTRIC DIRECTIONAL FLOW, TWISTS, TEXTURE OR SPIKING), BUNS OR BRAIDS WITH LOOSE HAIR EXTENDING AT THE END (EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BELOW) ..." "1. BRAIDS ... WHEN WORN, MULTIPLE BRAIDS SHALL BE OF UNIFORM DIMENSION, SMALL IN DIAMETER (APPROX. 1/8 TO 1/4 INCH), SHOW NO MORE THAN 1/8 OF AN INCH OF SCALP BETWEEN THE BRAIDS AND MUST BE TIGHTLY INTERWOVEN TO PRESENT A NEAT, PROFESSIONAL, WELL GROOMED APPEARANCE. FOREIGN MATERIAL (I.E., BEADS, DECORATIVE ITEMS) SHALL NOT BE BRAIDED INTO THE HAIR. BRAIDS MUST CONTINUE TO THE END OF THE NATURAL HAIR AND CAN BE WORN LOOSE FROM THAT POINT. WHEN WORN LOOSE, BRAIDS WILL COMPLY WITH MEDIUM OR LONG HAIR LENGTH GUIDELINES, OR BE SECURED TO THE HEAD IN ONE DIRECTION, IN STRAIGHT LINES (FORE AND AFT WHEN WEARING A BUN). THE HAIR FORMING THE BUN MAY BE UNBRAIDED. BUNS AND ENDS SHALL BE NEATLY AND INCONSPICUOUSLY FASTENED OR PINNED."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boo

 

Aren't you glad, though, that you don't have to be the one to interpret those hair regs?

 

I'm curious about what changes they have in mind to make the frame cap "more comfortable?" Service frame caps seem have not had any basic design changes since before WWII. What's the new hi-tech breakthrough in caps now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'm curious about what changes they have in mind to make the frame cap "more comfortable?" Service frame caps seem have not had any basic design changes since before WWII. What's the new hi-tech breakthrough in caps now?

 

 

I'm thinking it may have more to do with ensuring they fit over hair properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is another one of those decisions that have gotten approved despite the masses disapproving...much like sleeve rolling going away, etc, etc. There's going to be resistance, I'm sure the vast majority of females already in will wait until last moment to change over

 

It's going to have minimal impact, as most Marines wear their blues once a year to the Ball, and most commands don't make you wear the cover since they have no where to be placed but under the chairs, and once the booze starts flowing, they only get trampled. Generally we get an exception to the cover rule, as the only time we're outside is walking to and from the car

 

I think I've worn my cover 2 or 3 times in 10 years with the blues, and my blues probably only 5 or 6 times. The most time they get out of the closet is when they get tailored with new chevrons after promotion...and it's been nearly 5 years since then

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah another waste of my tax dollars. Can't wait to hear about the next USAF, Navy, Army unifrom changes, and let us not forget the TSA uniforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read an article yesterday that says the Navy is doing the same thing with officer and CPO "covers" and putting PO 1 and below females in jumper dress blues with white hats like males.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read an article yesterday that says the Navy is doing the same thing with officer and CPO "covers" and putting PO 1 and below females in jumper dress blues with white hats like males.

 

Only 96 years late.

 

h63193a.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...