Army's new tattoo policy

[averageJOE]

Soldiers told new rules governing tattoos, grooming standards on the way - News - Stripes

Some of the soldiers in my Unit think it's stupid. Some find it funny. Others think it's long past due. No more tattoo's below the elbow, knee, and above the neck line. Soldiers who already have them will be grandfathered in. New recruits, either pay out of pocket to have it removed or try another branch.

Thoughts?

 

[esmith]

Well as an old (very old) retired member of the military let me put it this way. The military is not a democracy, you may have an opinion but Uniform Regulations are just that, Regulations. Personally, I think body art that can be seen while wearing a uniform should be denied. I even thought that when they allowed civilian cloths aboard ship for E-6 and below was a bad idea. Some people think that body art is objectional, while others have no problem with it. The issue is that you as a member of the military are representing the country and if something is considered objectionable then those objections should be addressed. I always thought the USMC had the right idea. From http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marines/a/tattoo.htm

The Marine Corps takes a conservative approach to personal appearance. Uniform regulations stress that personal appearance is to be conservative and commensurate with the high standards traditionally associated with the Marine Corps. No eccentricities in dress or appearance are permitted because they detract from uniformity and team identity.

 

[averageJOE]

I'm one of the ones who find it funny. I don't have tattoo's and don't plan on getting any. Especially in those areas.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I agree that when wearing a uniform, no tattoos should be visable.

 

[Koldo]

Soldiers told new rules governing tattoos, grooming standards on the way - News - Stripes

Some of the soldiers in my Unit think it's stupid. Some find it funny. Others think it's long past due. No more tattoo's below the elbow, knee, and above the neck line. Soldiers who already have them will be grandfathered in. New recruits, either pay out of pocket to have it removed or try another branch.

Thoughts?

What else could i say?

It is silly.

 

[LuisDantas]

Probably a silly question, but why are uniformity and team identity desirable in the Armed Forces? To make group react in more predictable and uniform ways, perhaps?

I wonder if it is not time to revise that mindset.

 

[esmith]

Probably a silly question, but why are uniformity and team identity desirable in the Armed Forces? To make group react in more predictable and uniform ways, perhaps?

I wonder if it is not time to revise that mindset.

Uniformity builds unit cohesion. When you lose unit cohesion you lose the overall effectiveness of the unit. One must have experienced the military environment in order to understand what works and what does not work. Boot camp used to be to used to remove all semblance of individuality, not sure how it is in today's military though. When one thinks of themselves as individuals they have a tendency to put themselves above the unit and this is a very dangerous mindset to have in a combat unit.

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks. That is pretty much how I thought.

 

[Me Myself]

Leave your individuality behind and go kill other people for us.


Whats the problem?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Soldiers told new rules governing tattoos, grooming standards on the way - News - Stripes

Some of the soldiers in my Unit think it's stupid. Some find it funny. Others think it's long past due. No more tattoo's below the elbow, knee, and above the neck line. Soldiers who already have them will be grandfathered in. New recruits, either pay out of pocket to have it removed or try another branch.

Thoughts?

At first when I read it, I thought it was strange that they'd throw out the long tradition and history of tattoos in the military.

Then I thought about it a bit more, and realized that this tradition is mainly associated with the Navy. And if the Army has a tradition that runs longer and deeper than tattoos, it's the rivalry between the Army and the Navy.

 

[LuisDantas]

Leave your individuality behind and go kill other people for us.


Whats the problem?

None, as long as we decide to finish that abomination ASAP.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Uniformity builds unit cohesion. When you lose unit cohesion you lose the overall effectiveness of the unit. One must have experienced the military environment in order to understand what works and what does not work. Boot camp used to be to used to remove all semblance of individuality, not sure how it is in today's military though. When one thinks of themselves as individuals they have a tendency to put themselves above the unit and this is a very dangerous mindset to have in a combat unit.

If the Armed Forces were really out to get rid of any semblance of individuality, why would it give out commendations to individuals? If everything's about the unit, why wouldn't all commendations go to the unit?

 

[esmith]

At first when I read it, I thought it was strange that they'd throw out the long tradition and history of tattoos in the military.

Then I thought about it a bit more, and realized that this tradition is mainly associated with the Navy. And if the Army has a tradition that runs longer and deeper than tattoos, it's the rivalry between the Army and the Navy.

Sorry Charlie, I served 20 years in the US Navy from 1961 to 1981 and there is no "tradition" in the US Navy for tattoos. Yes some members of the Navy as well as members of other branches of the service had small individual tattoos, but not like the "body art" (guess that's the new name for tattoos) that is now seen on both sexes. I think in all that time I saw a very very very few tattoos and the majority of those were usually on the upper shoulder.

 

[LuisDantas]

If the Armed Forces were really out to get rid of any semblance of individuality, why would it give out commendations to individuals? If everything's about the unit, why wouldn't all commendations go to the unit?

I want to hear other takes on it, but far as I can tell it is because the very existence of Armed Forces relies on causing an intentional confusion between the collective and individual feelings, merits and efforts.

Soldiers are expected to be proud of their very "surrendering" to a higher authority and to actually think of their lack of knowledge of the reasons for their employment as something natural, expected, even praiseworthy.

It all ties back to some very questionable parts of human psychology, such as the drive to feel like a "part of something bigger than oneself" and the appeal of power structures that do not bother trying to be fair.

 

[esmith]

If the Armed Forces were really out to get rid of any semblance of individuality, why would it give out commendations to individuals? If everything's about the unit, why wouldn't all commendations go to the unit?

To recognize individual performance that contributed to the overall effectiveness of the unit. In addition unit and commands receive commendations as well as individuals. Also do you not think individual valor should not be recognized. The valor in all circumstances benefited the unti.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Also do you not think individual valor should not be recognized.

Of course I do. But I also realize that recognizing individual valour means recognizing the individual, which is something that you claim goes against the military ethos.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry Charlie, I served 20 years in the US Navy from 1961 to 1981 and there is no "tradition" in the US Navy for tattoos.

Perhaps it was just a sub-culture within the Navy that you weren't part of. This doesn't mean it's there.

You can't tell me that in 20 years of Navy service, you never encountered the stereotype of the tattooed sailor, can you?

Yes some members of the Navy as well as members of other branches of the service had small individual tattoos, but not like the "body art" (guess that's the new name for tattoos) that is now seen on both sexes. I think in all that time I saw a very very very few tattoos and the majority of those were usually on the upper shoulder.

I know a few Navy veterans myself who have forearm tattoos. IMO, the main difference between these tattoos of the past and tattoos now is stylistic.

 

[esmith]

I want to hear other takes on it, but far as I can tell it is because the very existence of Armed Forces relies on causing an intentional confusion between the collective and individual feelings, merits and efforts.

Soldiers are expected to be proud of their very "surrendering" to a higher authority and to actually think of their lack of knowledge of the reasons for their employment as something natural, expected, even praiseworthy.

It all ties back to some very questionable parts of human psychology, such as the drive to feel like a "part of something bigger than oneself" and the appeal of power structures that do not bother trying to be fair.

Military personnel do not "surrender" to a higher authority, they recognize that someone must be in charge and that person normally in charge, but not all the time, is of higher rank. It appears that you think that military personnel are of low mental capabilities or think they are by your comment " their lack of knowledge" seems to imply this. For some reason it appears that you have disdain for those serving in the military and the military in general. Getting back to your comment "lack of knowledge", you do realize that the military has a fairly high requirement for intelligence. The complexity of today's equipment requires highly skilled personnel to maintain and operate it.
You would probably be surprised about the minimum requirements (AFQT) for each branch of the service.
Coast Guard 50
Navy 35
Marines 32
Air Force 31
Army 31

You will notice that the USMC wants intelligent personnel that are capable of being able to think on their feet and adapt to changing conditions. If you happened to study the Pacific during WWII you will see that one of the main advantages that the US had was the ability of combat troops to "think" whereas in the early part of the war the Japanese were basically "locked into" the original plans set forth by their commanders. As far as being "fair", life is not fair. There are winners and losers, what you don't seem to comprehend is that the military is not a democracy and never can be.

 

[esmith]

Of course I do. But I also realize that recognizing individual valour means recognizing the individual, which is something that you claim goes against the military ethos.

No recognizing someone for something is not recognizing them for their individuality it is recognizing them for an accomplishment that was above that what is considered normal everyday commitment to their duty. However, if you wish to think it is recognizing the individual and goes, as you say, against the military ethos then feel free to think it.

 

[esmith]

Perhaps it was just a sub-culture within the Navy that you weren't part of. This doesn't mean it's there.

You can't tell me that in 20 years of Navy service, you never encountered the stereotype of the tattooed sailor, can you?


I know a few Navy veterans myself who have forearm tattoos. IMO, the main difference between these tattoos of the past and tattoos now is stylistic.

I served aboard 4 different ships, from a DE to a CVA and aboard the small ships you know just about everyone and there were very few tattoos and yes some had tattoos on their forearms but again tattoos were far and few between. You also must remember that the tattoo used to be associated with "biker gangs" and that was frowned upon by the majority of the civilian and military world. Another reason was that tattoos cost a lot of cash and we didn't have a lot of it. What we did have was normally spent on uniforms , beer, whiskey and the pursuit of women.