Lipstick: Just what a soldier needs...

[WootMoggie]

Barely a week after Biden announces that transwomen will be able to serve alongside women in the military, a policy change has been announced: Women in the military can now wear make-up.

Needless to say, I’m sure these events are entirely unrelated

twitter.com/lilylilymaynard/status/1357665623833198593?s=21

Yes, quite.

Once again we're being told that to be a woman one must be wearing make up. Smdh.

Funny that actual women requesting to be allowed to change the no make up rules would have been (and presumably was) a straight up NO.

Most of the women in the military will probably not bother with it. Leave it for the few who feel they really need makeup. For whatever reason that may be.

Can I ask a question- not trying to troll or goad, just understand. Why is there the automatic assumption that it’s linked to the trans agenda (genuinely curious). I’m a former soldier and would have welcomed this- not all jobs are in the ‘field’. Having more freedom in the office/barracks environment to wear nail varnish, have more hair styling options, makeup etc would have given me more freedom in those jobs to present a professional polished image, similar to how I did outside of uniform. I’ve genuinely not been recognised by colleagues I worked with day in day out, because they weren’t used to seeing me with my hair down and makeup on (and I’m fairly natural in my look even when ‘done up’). Armed services across the board are now allowing more flexibility in personal appearance (the RAF now allowing beards for example when this was previously only allowed in the Navy or for religious reasons, visible tattoos now being allowed etc.), why wouldn’t this also extend to women’s hairstyles and grooming.

Why is there the automatic assumption that it’s linked to the trans agenda (genuinely curious).

Cos we're a very cynical bunch. And the timing is notable.

My main concern is that this does appear to be an actually sexist policy. The actual press release says:

Approved revisions include optional wear of earrings, lipstick and nail colors for women and clear nail polish for men.

Why the different codes for different groups? Assuming this is self-ID men/women, this forces a self-ID change for different presentation, right?

It's not as bad as the stuff in Magdalen Berns' utterly skin-crawling , but it is yet another institutionalisation of "women = makeup".

So even if not directly motivated by it, it fits in with the trans agenda just in what it's doing, as opposed to what the GC people here want to see.

Will high heels also be allowed?

Talk about stirring up hate over petty nonsense.

So trans women as well as being nothing but predators are so all powerful that they can make the military allow lipstick and locs?

Sure all in a days work 🙄

It's the timing that makes us think this.

And no one has said "trans people are nothing but predators" if you think that, you don't understand the argument.

I’m a former soldier and would have welcomed this

@Aurora791 you would have welcomed it, yes, but it wasn't allowed was it? No, because it was women who were wanting it.
The rule has now changed immediately after transwomen can enlist? The timing is terrible. It's fishy as hell.

Thanks @NecessaryScene1, makes sense. The armed forces can be an incredibly sexist and homogenous beast, the phrase male, pale and stale could have been written about some of the commands I worked in. However i’m all for anything that would have given me more of an identity as a woman, whether you choose to wear make up or not.

Flipping the argument on its head, I sometimes felt that the uniforms covered us up to an extent that sometimes it was hard to tell people’s sex, and while all being ‘one’ is an essential element of the armed services, that shouldn’t be in the form of turning everyone into essentially looking male (hair slicked back, no different cut of combats for men or women so women generally had to have massive ones to fit in hips/boobs). By giving people a little more expression in their dress it will make women more visible in these roles which is definitely a good thing to try and get more women and the skill sets they offer into this environment.

And @Wandawomble high heels are already allowed- the RAF issue high heels and handbags to females as part of their normal working dress.

This is what WoLF warned about. It's still legal in America to require different dress codes for men and women. In the recent court case, instead of striking down that piece of legal sexism which would have allowed the complainant to legally wear skirts to work as a man, it concluded that requiring women to dress differently would continue to be legal, and to allow men to wear skirts one had to change what it meant to be a woman instead.
Keep the stereotypes, keep the sexism, pretend that sex isn't real.

Throwing out the baby and keeping the bathwater instead.

And yes, count me in amongst the cynics regarding the 'right to lipstick' which, I'd add, should be watched carefully lest it mutate into an obligation to wear lipstick. So as not to throw into stark relief the lipstick wearers against the sex who don't actually need to wear lipstick to signal their 'presentation'.

File it next to "schools that ignored decades of girls asking for trousers but introduced gender neutral uniforms three seconds after their first boy wanted to wear a skirt".

the RAF issue high heels and handbags to females as part of their normal working dress

Aurora, is that right? Are the high heels optional? And - wow,I'd never thought of this - are there standard-issue high heels that women have to wear?

Googling RAF High Heels...

@thinkingaboutLangCleg they are optional and you can wear trousers too if you would prefer. They are not massively high (or nice) but high heels nonetheless!

So trans women as well as being nothing but predators are so all powerful that they can make the military allow lipstick and locs?

Predators?
No - learn about safeguarding.

All-powerful?
Yes - the reasons cited by the military were “Diversity, equity, and inclusion”

Is "gender expression" a protected category?

Why is there the automatic assumption that it’s linked to the trans agenda (genuinely curious)

Because transwomen will want to wear make up and hair extensions and nail varnish to distinguish them from other males so they must allow female soldiers to do the same to enforce the narrative that make up = 'woman' and validate the transwomans identity.

To allow men to wear coloured nail varnish would again blur the line between the men and the transwomen.

This hasn't been put in place for the benefit of female soldiers. Nor has forcing them to have to share showers and dorms with penis havers.

There was talk in 2017 of the RAF banning female personnel wearing skirts on parade.

"One uniform for all" the default of course being the male uniform.

Oh that's a relief, Aurora. I have read of places where women are required to wear heels to work, and I think went to court for the right not to, but I never heard the outcome.

I'm not sure trousers are "male uniform" any more. It's been over a century of women wearing them in the UK now, I think we can genuinely claim they are completely unisex garments by now.

@Barracker

I'm not sure trousers are "male uniform" any more. It's been over a century of women wearing them in the UK now, I think we can genuinely claim they are completely unisex garments by now.

No we can't.

On school uniform threads there always posters on here who defend girls being told they can't wear skirts as part of school uniform because "trousers are unisex". In the context of being given no choice of what to wear that argument is specious.

@Barracker

This is what WoLF warned about. It's still legal in America to require different dress codes for men and women. In the recent court case, instead of striking down that piece of legal sexism which would have allowed the complainant to legally wear skirts to work as a man, it concluded that requiring women to dress differently would continue to be legal, and to allow men to wear skirts one had to change what it meant to be a woman instead. Keep the stereotypes, keep the sexism, pretend that sex isn't real.

Throwing out the baby and keeping the bathwater instead.

And yes, count me in amongst the cynics regarding the 'right to lipstick' which, I'd add, should be watched carefully lest it mutate into an obligation to wear lipstick. So as not to throw into stark relief the lipstick wearers against the sex who don't actually need to wear lipstick to signal their 'presentation'.

File it next to "schools that ignored decades of girls asking for trousers but introduced gender neutral uniforms three seconds after their first boy wanted to wear a skirt".

Everything you just said.