Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Sign in to follow this  
filthy_liar

Air Force allows beards & turbans and such

Recommended Posts

If you’ve been in the Air Force for longer than 15 mins, you realize that standards for men and women are way different and it goes way beyond the PT test.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Most people know how the test was designed. 
This does not support your argument that we have the "same" standard. We have different standards, literally generated by discrimanting based on gender averages.
As long as a woman can score an "excellent" for a run time that would end a man's career, we are damaging esprit de corp. But, sure, we have bigger problems.


What about different standards for different ages? Literally discriminating on age averages...

Does it impact mission? If not, then why do you care so much? I can see a single standard for physical jobs like infantry, but there are so many other military jobs where it just doesn't really matter, so who cares? Just meet your standard and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you’ve been in the Air Force for longer than 15 mins, you realize that standards for men and women are way different and it goes way beyond the PT test.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, FlyingWolf said:

Most people know how the test was designed. 

This does not support your argument that we have the "same" standard. We have different standards, literally generated by discriminating based on gender averages.

As long as a woman can score an "excellent" for a run time that would end a man's career, we are damaging esprit de corp. But, sure, we have bigger problems.

You can view it however you want man. I've personally never felt my "esprit de corp" hurt by when a woman runs faster, slower or in the same time as me. That might say more about you than the force as a whole. People wrapped up on this, just like people wrapped up on turbans and beards, have shown a really hollow adherence to a very clouded and artificial concept (esprit de corp) that honestly doesn't have a whole lot of backing for how you can measure it or it's contribution to combat power. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if turbans and beards don’t affect combat readiness or have a negative effect on the force, again I ask, why not just have one standard for all?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Duck said:

So if turbans and beards don’t affect combat readiness or have a negative effect on the force, again I ask, why not just have one standard for all?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Not sure what your point is? You want the freedom to wear a turban even if it’s not part of your religious observance? Or a non-religious beard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure what your point is? You want the freedom to wear a turban even if it’s not part of your religious observance? Or a non-religious beard?

My whole point is what’s the point in having different standards for different groups? That’s not a standard by definition. I have no issues with beards as long as that is the “standard”. I’m not ready to die on this hill, but I just think we need to have some blanket standards in place and not try and have a million different rules for a million different people.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little legal history/background/court battles/etc of USAF personnel trying to win the right to wear religious headgear/beards/etc in the USAF (involves the civilian courts/congress/etc - looooong).

  S. SIMCHA GOLDMAN, PETITIONER V. CASPAR W. WEINBERGER, SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, ET AL.

   No. 84-1097

   In the Supreme Court of the United States

   October Term, 1985

   On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit

   Brief for the Respondents

                       PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

   In addition to the parties listed in the caption of this case, the
Secretary of the Air Force was named as a defendant in the district
court and is a respondent in this Court.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/osg/briefs/1985/01/01/sg850109.txt

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, jazzdude said:


 

 


What about different standards for different ages? Literally discriminating on age averages...

Does it impact mission? If not, then why do you care so much? I can see a single standard for physical jobs like infantry, but there are so many other military jobs where it just doesn't really matter, so who cares? Just meet your standard and move on.

 

True. Though you know, all of us age. I wouldn't argue against getting rid of age brackets anyway.

34 minutes ago, FLEA said:

You can view it however you want man. I've personally never felt my "esprit de corp" hurt by when a woman runs faster, slower or in the same time as me. That might say more about you than the force as a whole. People wrapped up on this, just like people wrapped up on turbans and beards, have shown a really hollow adherence to a very clouded and artificial concept (esprit de corp) that honestly doesn't have a whole lot of backing for how you can measure it or it's contribution to combat power. 

Nice strawman. Me either.

Reality is, its more difficult to make a team of folks when they operate under different standards based on their race/religion/gender/etc. I'm a proponent for singular standards across the board.

Combat airpower tie in: Ive seen this end the service of guys who were otherwise high performers and, tighter teams perform better.

My piece is said, again... we certainly do have bigger issues.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Duck said:


My whole point is what’s the point in having different standards for different groups? That’s not a standard by definition. I have no issues with beards as long as that is the “standard”. I’m not ready to die on this hill, but I just think we need to have some blanket standards in place and not try and have a million different rules for a million different people.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I hear ya. Personally, I see nothing wrong with making reasonable accommodations for religious reasons. My Sikh buddy having a beard doesn’t make me feel like wearing a beard. I’m also ok with making accommodations for amputees returning to fly, old guys like me doing fewer pushups to max the test, and 4’10” women running the 1.5 mi run slower. This isn’t the infantry where we all need to be able to haul a 180 lb dummy over a barrier. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




My whole point is what’s the point in having different standards for different groups? That’s not a standard by definition. I have no issues with beards as long as that is the “standard”. I’m not ready to die on this hill, but I just think we need to have some blanket standards in place and not try and have a million different rules for a million different people.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app


So I'm sure that you only wear your flightsuit when stepping to fly, and OCPs/ABUs when you are mission planning or doing office duties. After all, that's the AF "standard.". Or 2 piece flightsuits for all friends, but Bose your boots when you're not flying like army aviation does.

Not saying we should do any of that, just pointing out that even with our daily uniforms it isn't standard, and aircrew are the exception.

Plus it doesn't matter what any of us think. As a federal agency, we're required to make reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs, and it looks like the AF is implementing it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never thought that I would be on Baseops arguing with people about such a common sense issue. Y’all have fun, enjoy your VO2 max of whatever the fcvk it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Duck said:

I never thought that I would be on Baseops arguing with people about such a common sense issue. Y’all have fun, enjoy your VO2 max of whatever the fcvk it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Chill man. Religious accommodation isn’t a radical idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chill man. Religious accommodation isn’t a radical idea.

Bro... Totally missed what I’m saying. I’m not arguing against religious accommodation. I’m more arguing that if we are cool letting some people wear beards then let’s wear beards. I just think we need to stop having a million exceptions and just set a minimum acceptable standard, from dress and appearance to pt testing.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Homestar said:

Chill man. Religious accommodation isn’t a radical idea.

"Ask not what accommodation you can make for your country. Ask what accommodation your country can make for you."

This is only one minor issue that few people care about. We can shrug it off. But it is yet another incremental step and an overall trend indicator that the population is willing to make fewer sacrifices. Therefore, fewer sacrifices must be required. How much uniformity is required for an effective military force? It's been so long since that concept has been tested that no one remembers.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Duck said:


Bro... Totally missed what I’m saying. I’m not arguing against religious accommodation. I’m more arguing that if we are cool letting some people wear beards then let’s wear beards. I just think we need to stop having a million exceptions and just set a minimum acceptable standard, from dress and appearance to pt testing.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Then I think you’re really overblowing the number of exceptions we’re talking about. What are they? Pregnancy, religion, and what else? 99/100 are meeting your uniform and PT standard without exceptions. To think this is some pinky liberal plot to destroy the elite military machine we’ve created is just overreaction. Which is par for base ops. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Job decisions are made in the Air Force to pick a particular sex or minority in the false name of diversity every single day. Largely to the detriment of the Military and its mission.

 

Which means less effective fighting force to defend the country.

 

But no big deal. China is about to wipe out a large potion of the population with their biological warfare designed super virus. So I guess it won’t matter much.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Job decisions are made in the Air Force to pick a particular sex or minority in the false name of diversity every single day. Largely to the detriment of the Military and its mission.

 

Which means less effective fighting force to defend the country.

 

But no big deal. China is about to wipe out a large potion of the population with their biological warfare designed super virus. So I guess it won’t matter much.

Substitute SARS for COVID-19. Some super virus.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Job decisions are made in the Air Force to pick a particular sex or minority in the false name of diversity every single day. Largely to the detriment of the Military and its mission.

The implication here is that certain sexes or minorities are a detriment to the military mission, which I fundamentally disagree with.

To tie your thought into the current discussion, you're implying that allowing a Sikh to wear a beard and turban makes our military a less lethal force on a large scale, which I also fundamentally disagree with.

I understand the general thought here, which (I believe) is that the military should have one standard for every military member, and if you can't/don't meet that standard then the individual should be forced out of the service.  I simply think this is an unreasonable bar to meet in a country that is as diverse as ours.  We make exceptions to policy for lots of things (which is part of Duck's disagreement), from physical, to dress/appearance, to length of service commitment.  I just disagree that these exceptions are "largely [a] detriment of the Military and its mission."

But I'm open to facts that show otherwise.

Edited by Homestar
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homestar. Do you make a living making up narratives, implications and assumptions for other people’s thoughts?

 

I didn’t say that sexes or minorities are a detriment to the military mission. Not anywhere close. Your made up BS isn’t welcome quoting me because it ain’t in context. Re read what I wrote.

 

You’re open? No you aren’t. You just read someone else’s thoughts and put your own meaning to it. No where in your rambling statement did you ask a question for intent of the author or attempt to discern or dissect what the author was thinking. That’s poor form old chap.

 

 

We already have equality of opportunity reguardless of skin color or sex. What we don’t need is equality of outcome. We do however need standards with which to employ our mission set abilities against.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Homestar said:

The implication here is that certain sexes or minorities are a detriment to the military mission, which I fundamentally disagree with.

I don't think that's the implication at all. I don't believe anyone here is making the argument that a particular gender/race/religion/body type/sexual preference/political view are a detriment to the military mission.

The detriment is due to the creation of different standards for different subsets of people who are doing the same job. The military uniform standard evolved due to a need to eliminate identity politics and tribalism within the ranks, not encourage it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, torqued said:

I don't think that's the implication at all. I don't believe anyone here is making the argument that a particular gender/race/religion/body type/sexual preference/political view are a detriment to the military mission.

The detriment is due to the creation of different standards for different subsets of people who are doing the same job. The military uniform standard evolved due to a need to eliminate identity politics and tribalism within the ranks, not encourage it.

I’ll buy that for a $2 bill (for the sake of argument). So then the question is what do we value most? [which detriment are we most willing to accept?] Do we want the Muslim in uniform with accommodation or do we want him to stay home?

Thinking about it for a minute: Under conscription, I’d be all for absolute minimization of other-than-service identity. With an all volunteer force, we’re a team of people whose motivations should (in theory) be roughly aligned at entry. The uniforms at Lexington and Concord probably looked like shit.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jice said:

I’ll buy that for a $2 bill (for the sake of argument). So then the question is what do we value most? [which detriment are we most willing to accept?] Do we want the Muslim in uniform with accommodation or do we want him to stay home?

Thinking about it for a minute: Under conscription, I’d be all for absolute minimization of other-than-service identity. With an all volunteer force, we’re a team of people whose motivations should (in theory) be roughly aligned at entry. The uniforms at Lexington and Concord probably looked like shit.

 

This is where my view comes from. I don't want people of different faiths in the military who are willing to compromise their spiritual fabric because of something that offers an unknown measure of military effectiveness. If they are willing to compromise their moral identity for something so trivial, what will happen when someone comes to them with a much larger oppurtunity. 

The options for them are currently 1.) don't join, or 2.) compromise. Largely, many of them won't join, and as a force, that weakens us because we are missing the insights unique to their cultural upbringing; a lesson I think we've squarely been smashed in the dick on for the last 20 years. 

I think Homestar nailed it when he said we simply have a cultural fabric to diverse to make everyone exactly the same. So make it as unified as possible, then realises those differences are actually our strengths. We are looking for unity of purpose, not unity of thought/ideas/expereince. 

Edited by FLEA
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the Sikhs I’ve worked with on international exercises are badass. They are a warrior class. I would be honored to have more of them working directly on the US side.

We need a little more warrior, little less snowflake marshmallow as a crew force. Removing a religious barrier to get these guys working with us is a win.

And if others get beards down the road, also neat. Not expected tho.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Guardian said:

We already have equality of opportunity reguardless of skin color or sex.

But we haven’t had equality of opportunity for those with religious tenets that require a turban or a beard, which was the point of the OP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...