Authors Paul M. Kearney
7 days
30 days
All time
Recent
Popular
What if... stay with me here... we married standards with effectiveness?
A brief thread... (1/n)
Hair standards for women have been awful. Just ask @gilltheamazon or @evo_kositz or @Accidental_E9 or like any woman in uniform. (/2)
But women’s hair isn’t the only generally arbitrary appearance standards.
A worthwhile natural experiment can be tattoo standards. (/3)
In the short time I’ve been in service, tattoo were:
-not allowed if exposed in Class B
-universally waived to include neck and hand tattoos
-allowed but photographed (all not just gang/racially suspect)
-acceptable for enlistees but not officer candidates (/4)
Did the Army’s effectiveness drop when tattoo standards were relaxed?
Did we become more effective when they were tightened?
The easy answer is no. Arbitrary standards are, wait for it, arbitrary.
(/5)
A brief thread... (1/n)
SCOOP: Army leaders are discussing making long-awaited changes to hair and grooming regulations in the name of inclusivity, including allowing some women to wear ponytails & removing offensive language from AR 670-1.
— Haley Britzky (@halbritz) December 29, 2020
Final changes are expected in January.https://t.co/iLrYMONloX
Hair standards for women have been awful. Just ask @gilltheamazon or @evo_kositz or @Accidental_E9 or like any woman in uniform. (/2)
But women’s hair isn’t the only generally arbitrary appearance standards.
A worthwhile natural experiment can be tattoo standards. (/3)
In the short time I’ve been in service, tattoo were:
-not allowed if exposed in Class B
-universally waived to include neck and hand tattoos
-allowed but photographed (all not just gang/racially suspect)
-acceptable for enlistees but not officer candidates (/4)
Did the Army’s effectiveness drop when tattoo standards were relaxed?
Did we become more effective when they were tightened?
The easy answer is no. Arbitrary standards are, wait for it, arbitrary.
(/5)