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

I sometimes felt that the uniforms covered us up to an extent that sometimes it was hard to tell people’s sex

Which is exactly why transwomen want to have a visual signifier that they identify as women

Going to have to agree to disagree about all trousers being 'men's clothes' there!

I'm not really convinced these are related decisions.

I don't think nail varnish is a particularly good idea, but maybe that's because I think it often looks poor, or unprofessional. I can understand why women working in an office environment would want to be able to wear some make-up. Military uniforms in offices generally are meant to just be fairly conservative looking, they arne't going to want to push any envelopes.

I’m just struggling to see that there is causation between the 2 decisions. Trans people were previously allowed to serve so it’s not even a new decision, just a repeal of an old one. The policy for these decisions take months if not years to work up, and I imagine consultation around the dress-code changes would have started long before Biden was elected, so I’m inclined to think on this instance that it’s just a coincidence.

Make up has been allowed in the British Army for as long as I can remember - basic rules are that appearance has to be professional and must not cause any H&S issues (eg no opaque nail varnish on ops in case of injury and need for oximeter, no flammable false nails etc)

Transgender personal have been allowed to continue serving for ages too - since mid/late 1990

I don't see these as inherently connected issues because they have been wholly unconnected here, and neither make up nor transgender personnel have caused any noticeable diminution in military effectiveness

@Barracker

Going to have to agree to disagree about all trousers being 'men's clothes' there!

Of course they are in situation of only one option being available. It's been discussed at length and plenty of posters disagree with you. Making women and girls give up something sits fine with some "feminists" in these cases and that type of feminist argues "oh that's fair, because trousers are gender - neutral"

On this particular point re the US Army the directive also went on to say additionally, breastfeeding or pumping soldiers are now permitted to wearing undershirts to better accommodate their needs.Is that driven by trans rights too?

Whether the whole thing is driven by a trans agenda I don't know. It might just be a happy coincidence. Maybe trans issues pushed something which had previously been banned? Maybe , heaven forfend , some natal female soldiers might welcome this?

Like I said, I disagree with you.

Vests, shirts, socks or trousers, none of these things are men's clothes. Both sexes can wear them and both sexes do. And have done for well over a century.
To argue that they are somehow still men's is daft. Men don't hold some kind of dibs on a particular item of clothing. Women don't walk around in jeans thinking "I'm wearing men's clothes today"
Whether they are the only option presented as a uniform or one of many is irrelevant. If they're cut to fit the wearer and are appropriate for the job then they're just clothes.

It's fine that people disagree with me, I'm ok with that. People are often very attached to sexist ideas about clothes, hairstyles and shoes 'belonging' to one sex or the other.
I don't expect to change everyone's sexist ideas.

You might want to consider your own sexist ideas, but I doubt it.

On this particular point re the US Army the directive also went on to say additionally, breastfeeding or pumping soldiers are now permitted to wearing undershirts to better accommodate their needs.Is that driven by trans rights too?

Makeup vs. undershirt to help hold leaking/heavy breasts seem very, very different. The undershirt can be a practical, usual item of clothing that will make a female soldier's job much easier to perform. How makeup helps a solider perform their job or what function it serves is not so clear.

I have worked in professional office roles much of my career and felt that a bit of makeup did serve a function of "looking the part." Now, it would have been sexist as hell to require me to wear makeup, but I did see a function in wearing it in corporate settings....but I don't get that in the military. Smudged eyeliner after a night of sleeping on the ground in your uniform seems to me a PIA more than a function. Bright red lipstick if smeared in the wrong place after a physical confrontation could look like an injury, wouldn't it?

I know in the UK women had a lot of trouble with ill fitting equipment causing injury.

I'm assuming there's no problem with that in USA?

Also reports about sexual attacks on women in the military. I'm sure that's been USA as well as UK.

I imagine there's things many women in the US armed forces might put before makeup? Did they ask women what they wanted?

And yes the timing is

taskandpurpose.com/analysis/women-combat-gear-problem/

Loads if you Google

'She told Task & Purpose that the military is “long overdue” for fixing this problem, and is “actively endangering our female service members by providing them inadequate gear.” '

Yeah but nail varnish!!!!!

'To argue that they are somehow still men's is daft. Men don't hold some kind of dibs on a particular item of clothing. Women don't walk around in jeans thinking "I'm wearing men's clothes today"'

In both the UK and from googling the us army women are subject to injury and put at risk in the field due to ill fitting uniform.

This is also an issue with the met.

Oh! And PPE for women in the nhs, to hit up a more recent topic.

It DOES matter. We are not small men with boobs stuck on. We are anatomically different and where male is default (most things) they do not work for us.

I think that's what invisible women is about.

But yay lipstick.

@mpsw

Make up has been allowed in the British Army for as long as I can remember - basic rules are that appearance has to be professional and must not cause any H&S issues (eg no opaque nail varnish on ops in case of injury and need for oximeter, no flammable false nails etc)

Transgender personal have been allowed to continue serving for ages too - since mid/late 1990

I don't see these as inherently connected issues because they have been wholly unconnected here, and neither make up nor transgender personnel have caused any noticeable diminution in military effectiveness

So men are allowed to wear make up in British Army? Did they put that in writing?

If I were still serving I would have preferred uniform tailored to fit the female form far before the addition of lipstick and nail varnish! My whole career I had to put up with combats that were too long in the leg and arms and combat jackets that reached my knees. I went on parade (and daily duties) looking like a shower of shite compared to my male counterparts whose uniform fitted them.

But hey, I’m only a female. Not important really.

The policy on transgender by Biden was a reversal of a Trump measure
Makeup is implementation of a review conducted last year.

www.globaltimes.cn/page/202101/1214246.shtml

The changes are the result of a review launched in 2020 under previous defense secretary Mark Esper, part of an examination of racial discrimination and mistreatment of minorities in the military.

www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2275106/secretary-mark-t-esper-provides-update-on-department-efforts-to-address-diversi/

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’).

Could someone explain to me how men are able to present a professional image without using makeup?

What is ‘polished’ in ‘professional and polished’? What does it mean and why does it matter?

Finally, hand on heart, if you’re a woman with these beliefs and feelings about makeup, are you genuinely able not to view makeup-free women as ‘unprofessional’ or do you think you may have some unconscious bias?

Info on dress codes if you are really interested

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/626107/2017-03109.pdf

Facial hair regulations have recently been relaxed for certain trades.

The idea that hair must be worn above the collar remains in force for both sexes - if accessories are worn they must be plain and unobtrusive and although hair can be dyed it must still be a normal hair colour.

Make up not closely defined, just that if worn it must give a professional appearance .

Jewellery regulations are different by sex, with women permitted to wear an engagement ring as well as a wedding ring, also plain stud or small sleeper earrings

@WeetabixBananaHipsterFFS I mean polished in terms of how I like to present myself. I’m a woman, and a former soldier, and like @exLtEveDallas have worn some horrendous uniforms in my years, that not only made me look like a sack of sh*t but also were frankly dangerous (which incidentally is something I am very passionate about and advocate for in my current day job). I mean I once had to take off my body armour on the firing range (on a static shoot only so albeit not massively dangerous) because it was so Ill fitting that in order to accommodate my breasts I had to have a massive size so that every time I lay down prone to fire it rode up, and pushed my helmet down over my eyes so I couldn’t see. Most females in the armed forces have a story like this.

My point was that it’s about choice. The rules as they were are typically made for men, so by easing up some of the restrictions in the US (and similar ones in the UK) means that people have more freedom to present themselves more like themselves. For me this is wearing make up and having my hair done, but I appreciate that this may not be something that others want, and I certainly wouldn’t judge them for that (and didn’t over the course of the previous, and current career). And it’s only something I would do in the barrack/office environment, like 90+% of day to day soldiering is. I certainly wouldn’t be putting on lipstick or eyeliner In the field @Delphinium20. If I had time to be doing that I’d rather spend the time sleeping!

There are so many things in the armed forces that are so unbalanced towards women, but this is just one I see as a positive, but appreciate this is just my personal opinion from my experiences.

What the fuck are "locs"?

Trousers are just clothes.

@prisencolinensinainciusol2

What the fuck are "locs"?

A form of dreadlock

Errrrr..... people can wear make up if they want to?
I never do wear it but WTF, why does it have to be a trans issue
Just because I never wear it doesn't mean I think others don't want to.

Yes of course they can.

This is about the timing of the change in the rules for female military so they can wear makeup and nail varnish. For reasons of diversity. A week after the rules about trans military were changed.

Now personally I think as I'm sure most of us do that being trans, gay, GNC etc should be no bar to serving in the armed forces if that's what you want to do.

However with the huge problems with

Sexism sexual assault and rape of female personnel (in the UK been covered up I'm sure in the USA as well)

And the dangers that female personnel are exposed to by having uniform that is not cut for the female frame

It feels to me that there are more pressing matters than makeup and nail varnish.

Locs a different matter and presumably (?) for both sexes. So let's put that to one side.

Who remembers the first woman in the UK to serve on the frontline in an infantry role?

www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/transgender-soldier-chloe-allen-is-first-woman-on-british-army-frontline_uk_57dd5ae6e4b028e52a10d40d/

History made. Women were barred from this role. They opened it up to women at around the time of this but the time taken to qualify meant that any other women applying would take some time to get in. Chloe was already in and so takes the first woman to do it place in history.

I would be really happy for Chloe to be the first open trans person in the role. That would be great.

But first woman? When no other women (unless in the same position to Chloe) had any way of getting there first?

A lot of pics of Chloe seem to have gone. At the time and in this article. Their trans woman status was indicated by slightly long hair, earrings and makeup.

In military garb and unadorned sex is harder to hide. The signals are around hair, makeup, clothes, posture etc. In the army the clothes and posture are prescribed. It's harder to signal feminine/masculine.

So yes I think that's why the rules were changed. To support trans women in the us military.

This is about the timing of the change in the rules for female military so they can wear makeup and nail varnish. For reasons of diversity. A week after the rules about trans military were changed

Just to reiterate, that is the US military

British military policies were on completely different timelines