A US Marine Corps guidance released in March states that people who suffer from skin conditions like PFB may be discharged; critics argue the policy is ‘racist.’
Yet another “anti-military” article from people who clearly don’t understand the military.
Hi… It’s me again. Army Veteran. Showing up in the comments of another military article because there is clear and obvious reasons why this is happening that has nothing to do with Trump (Not sure why so many other commenters jump on this every time). Claiming that this is racist is crazy when the purpose and reason for it is innately to stop people from dying unnecessarily. If you think this is racism, I’d argue that it’s not. I’d also argue that ignoring the medical problem can actually kill those you think you’re protecting from “racism”.
This is not new. While I was in (primarily under Obama) people with problematic beard hair would need to be medically evaluated. At one point I was evaluated as razor bumps kept coming up for a little while (cleared up eventually though). The primary reason for the military caring about it is because NBC masks need to fit particularly well in order for them to do their jobs. For those who don’t know what NBC means, gas masks. Nothing sucks more than doing gas chamber training and getting a mask that doesn’t fit well. Considering the current world capabilities, it would be a disaster to send a unit out and have them all get nailed with mustard gas and have just the “black” (quoting this because it’s inaccurate, I saw many people need a profile over bad shaves. a plurality were actually black) people die because with hair, you can’t get a good seal, and with the bumps, you can’t get a good seal.
Now up to this point, I’ve said terms like “profile” and “medically evaluated”, none of these things innately remove you from service unless it’s extreme (or fails to clear up over significant time). The only thing moving forward is that if it doesn’t clear up they want to medically discharge you from service. Here’s the rub though, you can’t have soldiers that can’t put on NBC masks and keep them deployable. It’s a basic core task. War is war, it’s nasty. The headline that gets written in the worst case scenario is “Black soldiers die in mass NBC attack because mask seals don’t work” is the alternative here. This consideration HAS to be addressed when you expect war to kick up (Iran, anyone?). This is a problem… And in my time, I’ve seen a handful (very few) people hide behind this condition to do less work than their peers, especially to dodge deployable statuses and NBC chamber training.
Lastly, if you read the article “The recent policy update under Brig. Gen. David R. Everly reversed a 2022 rule”. This “rule” is very new and was likely found to harm wartime readiness after trying it out. The people getting kicked out would be relatively new recruits in their first enlistment. I can only imagine how much worse their experience was in many training exercises because of the ill-fitting masks, and honestly, I don’t really see an alternative that doesn’t potentially sacrifice their lives should they deploy. These soldiers will have already served sufficiently to obtain their benefits and it would be a medical discharge, which is not a dishonorable discharge. They would keep any benefits that they had obtained through their service.
And to preempt an argument… “there’s no study that says beards/razor bumps interfere with gas masks”… There are. Most of them say minimal beards/hair is fine (less than 1/16th of an inch) to get a mask seal, where 1/8 can already lead to issues. But it’s understudied. The risk of getting it wrong is people’s lives.
Edit: Typo
Edit2: Reported by a blahaj.zone user…
Reason: Misinformation, dog whistles, and holding water for fascists
Lmfao. Apparently pointing out that this was a thing for a long time and restating information in the article itself is misinformation…
The recent policy update under Brig. Gen. David R. Everly reversed a 2022 rule". This “rule” is very new and was likely found to harm wartime readiness after trying it out.
Likely according to what evidence? You’re making an assumption here. I have zero reason to assume good faith with Trump and Hegseth changing anything right now, why should you?
But you’re correct in that I don’t have any evidence that the military found or validated the same findings internally. I think it’s more likely than not though.
Edit: Actually I do have some minor proof that they know there’s issues… But it’s covered in the same “it’s really understudied” caveat that I put in the post itself. Not worth really discussing IMO.
Edit2: I’d even disbelieve that Trump knows enough about the military to find out that they could use this to be frank…
from 2018 says there’s problems with even really short lengths of beard…
You are making claims that weren’t in the article. That studies conclusiion were
“Conclusion: Beard length and areal density negatively influence FF. However, tight-fitting half-face negative-pressure respirator fit tests can achieve adequate fit factor scores even with substantial facial hair in the face seal area.”
Plus your original claim was that razor bumps would negatively impact the fit, not short length beards. You’re moving the goalposts.
Plus your original claim was that razor bumps would negatively impact the fit, not short length beards. You’re moving the goalposts.
No it wasn’t… but you go ahead and keep lying to yourself. You can scroll up and read it for yourself.
And to preempt an argument… “there’s no study that says beards/razor bumps interfere with gas masks”… There are. Most of them say minimal beards/hair is fine (less than 1/16th of an inch) to get a mask seal, where 1/8 can already lead to issues. But it’s understudied. The risk of getting it wrong is people’s lives.
Note that the quoted section is not “me” saying it, but a response to that general topic/discussion.
But we’ve already discussed this ad nauseam, so you can stop following me around now.
And to preempt an argument… “there’s no study that says beards/razor bumps interfere with gas masks”… There are. Most of them say minimal beards/hair is fine (less than 1/16th of an inch) to get a mask seal, where 1/8 can already lead to issues. But it’s understudied. The risk of getting it wrong is people’s lives.
You are conflating razor bumps with a 1/8" beard. There aren’t studies that evaluate mask fittings with razor bumps, you’re just adding that to suit your argument.
"While many military leaders defending the beard prohibition have repeated the claim that beards break gas mask seals, one Air Force doctor has found no direct scientific evidence to support it.
“It’s an unsubstantiated claim,” said Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie, a dermatologist who last year published a study on the beard prohibition’s discriminatory effect on Black airmen. While supporters of current Air Force policy “may have anecdotal evidence of one to five people who they see fail the fit test,” he said, “that can’t be extrapolated to hundreds of thousands of airmen.”
I’ve never been in the military, but I can guarantee I’ve had to wear a full face respirator rated for organic solvents more often than you. Imo beards have minimal effects on getting a decent seal. My hospital makes us do a fit test every 3-4 weeks, and I’ve passed with a beard longer than a 1/4" plenty of times.
In reality the shape of your face and the brand of your mask has a lot more to do with passing a fit test more than anything. I can guarantee that razor bumps aren’t going to make a difference.
So then you have no clue what the M50 respirator fits like then…
but I can guarantee I’ve had to wear a full face respirator rated for organic solvents more often than you.
Weird guarantee to make when you have no fucking clue who I am or what I do… I even told you from my post that I have a full face respirator still. Would be weird to have one and not be using it no? But now this devolves into a pissing contest, which I’m not particularly interested in participating in.
Edit: Additionally… the risk of whatever you’re doing in the hospital is much lower than Sarin gas or other wartime gaseous weapons. A bad seal for you might make you a little dizzy or you have to take a break and re-seal/replace your respirator, where a bad seal on the battle field would simply mean death.
Edit: Additionally… the risk of whatever you’re doing in the hospital is much lower than Sarin gas or other wartime gaseous weapons. A bad seal for you might make you a little dizzy or you have to take a break and re-seal/replace your respirator, where a bad seal on the battle field would simply mean death.
Lol, no we have to wear butyl respirators and do monthly fit tests because we work with extremely dangerous chemicals. Some of which do have a NFPA rating of 4, the same as Sarin.
then you have no clue what the M50 respirator fits like then
Lol, I imagine it fits like any butyl rubber respirator. They aren’t making them specifically worse just for the military.
Weird guarantee to make when you have no fucking clue who I am or what I do…
I mean, did you wear your respirator multiple hours everyday for more than ten years? Unless you were working in a lab for the military I highly doubt you spent much time in your PPE.
I even told you from my post that I have a full face respirator still. Would be weird to have one and not be using it no?
Not really? Unless you use it for your job a lot of people will have one they seldomly use at home for small projects like painting.
But now this devolves into a pissing contest, which I’m not particularly interested in participating in.
Your basing all of your argument on anecdotal evidence… Of course bits going to divulge into a pissing contest. That’s why I posted a source stating that there was no evidence supporting your claim…you know the part that you ignored.
Just being in the military isn’t evidence, we have no idea what you mos was or how long you were in for. For all we know you could have just been a pog in the national guard for 4 years.
They aren’t making them specifically worse just for the military.
Oh boy… you don’t know about military contracts do you?
That’s why I posted a source stating that there was no evidence supporting your claim…you know the part that you ignored.
You posted quotes with no source. Which is why I ignored it.
But fine… let’s address these unsourced quotes since that’s what you’re hung up on.
"While many military leaders defending the beard prohibition have repeated the claim that beards break gas mask seals, one Air Force doctor has found no direct scientific evidence to support it.
Results: FF decreased with beard length, especially beyond 0.125 in. However, passing FF scores were achieved on all tests by all subjects at the smooth shave and 0.063 in conditions, and 98% of tests were passed at 0.125 in; seven subjects passed all tests at all conditions.
“It’s an unsubstantiated claim,” said Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie, a dermatologist who last year published a study on the beard prohibition’s discriminatory effect on Black airmen. While supporters of current Air Force policy “may have anecdotal evidence of one to five people who they see fail the fit test,” he said, “that can’t be extrapolated to hundreds of thousands of airmen.”
I agree with him… it is discriminatory. But when the effect of that discrimination is less potential death on a battlefield…
The problem with this though is that services give profiles/chits for shaving… So those people often will not participate in mask training at all… Can’t find what you’re not even looking for. So just saying “anecdotal”… well yeah, that’s all there is if he’s not actively researching it. And as seen above, when research is done… it shows exactly what I said it shows, because I’m basing my opinion on my lived experience and the research that supports that. As I said though, it is under-researched…
And lastly…
In reality the shape of your face and the brand of your mask has a lot more to do with passing a fit test more than anything.
Which the military standardized on one specific model of mask… so picking a choosing a brand is kind of out of the question now isn’t it?
I would like to pose a different question for you then… Assuming that you have the 1/4" or longer facial hair now that you claim you wear… Would you be confident that you could run in it for a football field carrying gear and shooting a gun for hours without losing the seal?
" Beard length and areal density negatively influence FF. However, tight-fitting half-face negative-pressure respirator fit tests can achieve adequate fit factor scores even with substantial facial hair in the face seal area"
I don’t really think one could really claim that a 2% reduction in effectiveness quantifies as beards break gas mask seals.
agree with him… it is discriminatory.
That’s what the whole argument was about.
when the effect of that discrimination is less potential death on a battlefield…
Again, you haven’t substantiated your claim about bumps effecting seals… You haven’t even substantiated that beards break seals.
So no, you can’t claim it would save lives. Plus, the majority of people serving in the military arent in combat positions.
And as seen above, when research is done… it shows exactly what I said it shows, because I’m basing my opinion on my lived experience and the research that supports that.
I don’t think you read that paper correctly…
Which the military standardized on one specific model of mask… so picking a choosing a brand is kind of out of the question now isn’t it?
That doesn’t have anything to do with your facial hair…does it?
would like to pose a different question for you then… Assuming that you have the 1/4" or longer facial hair now that you claim you wear… Would you be confident that you could run in it for a football field carrying gear and shooting a gun for hours without losing the seal?
I don’t have a beard atm, but I would be just as confident doing that with or without the beard.
Wouldn’t know. Didn’t try to wear it without being clean shaven (or close enough/stubble).
you are exhaustingly pedantic…
Because I’m choosing to ignore something that you could have linked to? Sure… I’m pedantic then.
I don’t really think one could really claim that a 2% reduction in effectiveness quantifies as beards break gas mask seals.
out of thousands of soldiers? out of thousands of applications of the mask during an attack? 2% is a large number…
Again, you haven’t substantiated your claim about bumps effecting seals… You haven’t even substantiated that beards break seals.
The sourced document that I provided and clearly you read proved to you that beards will break seals. From the study “Beard length and areal density, but not coarseness, were statistically significant predictors of fit”. If length and density were not relevant to the matter then they would have stated so. But it is. So it is. Poor fit is a bad seal. The study showed no issue for up to 0.063 inches of hair… pull out a caliper and check that length… That is VERY short. I can grow that in probably 2-3 days. Hell even 0.125 is pretty short… and that’s where there’s already fall off and failures in getting seals. You are now arguing that it’s okay for 2% of military members to die during a chemical attack just because they want to have a bit more than stubble… This is a crazy stance to accept.
So no, you can’t claim it would save lives. Plus, the majority of people serving in the military arent in combat positions.
Can’t choose what gets attacked… The enemy chooses that.
That doesn’t have anything to do with your facial hair…does it?
I didn’t bring it up did I? You did.
I don’t have a beard atm, but I would be just as confident doing that with or without the beard.
I have to assume that this is “not at all” confidence for both scenarios then.
Honestly though I’m still reeling from you comparing your job of just handling some chemicals to an airborne chemical attack situation that would aerosolise the chemical…
Wouldn’t know. Didn’t try to wear it without being clean shaven (or close enough/stubble).
I meant without… Though I doubt you spent much time in it. What was your mos again…? Never answered that. I’m guessing based on the fact that you’re non Lemmy it wasn’t infantry… I’m guessing you were on a computer most of the time.
out of thousands of soldiers? out of thousands of applications of the mask during an attack? 2% is a large number…
Reduction in effectiveness does not mean failure you dolt.
The sourced document that I provided and clearly you read proved to you that beards will break seals. From the study “Beard length and areal density, but not coarseness, were statistically significant predictors of fit”. If length and density were not relevant to the matter then they would have stated so. But it is. So it is. Poor fit is a bad seal. The study showed no issue for up to 0.063 inches of hair… pull out a caliper and check that length… That is VERY short. I can grow that in probably 2-3 days. Hell even 0.125 is pretty short… and that’s where there’s already fall off and failures in getting seals. You are now arguing that it’s okay for 2% of military members to die during a chemical attack just because they want to have a bit more than stubble… This is a crazy stance to accept.
Lol, again ignoring the part where you claimed that razor bumps affected seals…you aren’t arguing in good faith. You are also making conclur not made by the original source.
Can’t choose what gets attacked… The enemy chooses that.
Lol… With chemical weapons?
didn’t bring it up did I? You did.
My claim was that facial hair has little to do with a good seal, and that facial shape and brand has more to do with it.
Your argument is that it’s facial hair not, so the brand doesn’t do anything to support you argument.
have to assume that this is “not at all” confidence for both scenarios then.
And the argument is about facial hair… Remember? I like how you constantly they to redirect the argument away from your original claim… really helpful.
Honestly though I’m still reeling from you comparing your job of just handling some chemicals to an airborne chemical attack situation that would aerosolise the chemical…
Honestly surprised your arguing with some with a degree in chemistry when your only experience was probably in basic training. You deal with a lot of Sarin attacks in the 4 years of doing IT for the army?
At this point we’re getting nowhere… When you say shit like “With chemical weapons?”… Yes we’re talking about literal war… where soldiers are the ones following these policies. This is literally the primary place chemical weapons are used as far as all of known recorded history.
OSHA, ANSI, all branches of DOD and the study agree with me… You can argue whatever you want, I’m disengaging.
OSHA paragraph (g)(1) of 29 CFR 1910.134
ANSI Z88.10
You basically admitted to breaking OSHA rules though. So congrats!
Those were quotes… not sources <edit>weakly sourced without any validation</edit>. I specifically ignored them because they were <edit>effectively</edit> unsourced. I’m not going to hunt down that quote to validate it was ever even said.
General Grievous says “[email protected] is lying about the quotes they provided. Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie was relieved of duty for malpractice years ago dishonorably.”
But fine, I addressed them following their comment. Read about it there.
to repeat (a passage, phrase, etc.) from a book, speech, or the like, as by way of authority, illustration, etc. […] to cite, offer, or bring forward as evidence or support.
Source
any thing or place from which something comes, arises, or is obtained; origin.
The problem with simply using a name as a “source” in this context… This lemmy user didn’t talk to that Lt. Col. so that lemmy user can’t be a source to say that the Col said anything… They took that quote from somewhere else… and didn’t cite that source. So it goes unsourced as the origin of where the quote is derived was not disclosed. Much the same as we both know that General Grievous from my previous comment is a fictional character and definitely didn’t say anything of that sort… Yet I “quoted” it… with no source to prove that anything was ever actually said. Quoting something without a citation to the source where you obtain the quote is effectively pointless on the internet.
This same article goes on to show the same study that I posted elsewhere though… with a bizarre stance on the results though…
These anecdotes all regard oxygen masks for aviators, so it would be too bold to extrapolate that the same rings true for gas masks, Ritchie explained. Still, it’s a start, and there is also a recent study from the civilian world that could indicate positive outcomes for beard-hopefuls in the U.S. military. The 2018 study showed that facial hair negatively influences the fit factor for half-face negative-pressure respirators as the hair gets longer and more dense. However, beard-wearers can still “achieve adequate fit factor scores even with substantial facial hair in the face seal area,” the study authors wrote. In fact, 98% of the study participants who had an eighth-inch of beard passed the fit test. Those results are encouraging because the respirators used in the study are pretty close to the M-50 gas masks used in the military today in terms of material and fit, Ritchie said.
Not sure why 98% is acceptable to them… but is what it is. I don’t particularly find the number acceptable considering it’s entirely preventable deaths that could be stopped.
See… I provided the source… and the quote. There is no concern about me having made shit up because you can see it for yourself without hunting for the source yourself.
You can type all that, still funny when you know that a quote with a name is a source. Since you know the quotes source is that named person. Not really relevant if it is a correct quote or not, as a sourced lie is a thing as well.
I mean its right there in your own example “…to cite, offer, or bring forward as evidence or support.”
Cool then you must accept my previous statement of
General Grievous says “[email protected] is lying about the quotes they provided. Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie was relieved of duty for malpractice years ago dishonorably.”
It’s a quote, attributed to a name. Right?
Edit: Would you feel better if I change the verbiage to “I wasn’t given a good source” or “validated source”?
I’m just here trying to figure out how many hours does it take to grow your beard before you lose seal. Do you need to stop combat to shave every 12h? 6h? 1h? I need to know!
This is racist horseshit and refusal to equip soldiers properly. Or more accurately, Marines who I’d wish were a little more vocal about the blatant fascism these days
I don’t see anywhere where it says to be compatible with a beard. Also, it says it protects from sandblasting and asbestos. Tear gas and the like are a very diffefent beast and get through smaller openings.
Even if we did… getting and keeping whatever that device would be functional on a battlefield is a whole different ball-game…
War sucks…
Edit:
The easiest answer is a standard razor blade. It’s easy, simple, and light (and reuseable if needed… as much as they’re not really supposed to be). But that’s what causes problems.
And to preempt an argument… “there’s no study that says beards/razor bumps interfere with gas masks”… There are. Most of them say minimal beards/hair is fine (less than 1/16th of an inch) to get a mask seal, where 1/8 can already lead to issues. But it’s understudied. The risk of getting it wrong is people’s lives.
I was coming in here to disagree with you, because I’ve heard this same thing, but I won’t argue a point unless I check my sources first, and sure enough, you’re correct (except maybe that stubble is fine). OSHA even states that tight-fitting respirators are not to be used by those with facial hair that extends past/across the seal. So one could argue that if wearing a gas mask is a requirement, anybody who has facial hair (other than a trimmed moustache) is unable to fulfill that requirement by OSHA rules alone.
The 2018 study showed that facial hair negatively influences the fit factor for half-face negative-pressure respirators as the hair gets longer and more dense. However, beard-wearers can still “achieve adequate fit factor scores even with substantial facial hair in the face seal area,” the study authors wrote. In fact, 98% of the study participants who had an eighth-inch of beard passed the fit test. Those results are encouraging because the respirators used in the study are pretty close to the M-50 gas masks used in the military today in terms of material and fit, Ritchie said.
So 2 out of 100 people using masks that are relatively similar to the military M50 would be at risk at 1/8th inch beard. Which is not a whole lot of hair… Like 3-4 days of growth (for me). 1/16 or less seemed to be 100% rates… But the big caveat here is that the fit-test doesn’t adequately capture the rigor and activity that one might do in the military… So it seems logical that much more leakage will happen at every level.
But OSHA, ANSI, every branch of the DoD, and every study (though minimal) agrees with the fact that beard hair in of itself is a no go.
The funny part is that I said basically this exact same thing in another thread, and got shouted down with “lul gas masks seal fine over a beard” types of comments.
Yeah… I expected those here as well… thus the “and to preempt an argument” section.
I’m out of the military now… I oftentimes let my beard get longer… I can promise you(anyone) that masks don’t fit nearly as well. I have a personal full face respirator for a number of reasons. It doesn’t seal nearly as well when my beard is anything beyond basic stubble for me. First the beard changes your face shape, second hair doesn’t compress well unless you really crank on the straps and thus by nature the seal becomes uneven since hair moves and clumps, third when you crank on the straps… it fucking hurts after a while. Turns out people in general don’t like having their face compressed.
Now you want to apply those problems to a warzone… Where the first and second will make donning your mask considerably harder when you’re under fire… and the third will make it more likely that people will want to remove the mask or make worse choices because they’re in literal pain wearing the mask.
It’s one thing if you’re only wearing the mask in a fire or something and a nominal amount of carbon monoxide gets through… Mustard gas or other agents could be outright deadly at very low doses.
Edit: Oh another difference… Consumer shit isn’t meant to be worn for days on end… So it tends to be softer/pliable. Which can contour and fit more shapes/beards and such… Military NBC equipment isn’t this way. It’s mean to be worn for considerably longer and perform to a much different standard. They much more rigid, which adds to the problem a bit… less flexible overall because it needs to be a more resistant rubber/plastic. A respirator for a firefighter gets civilian purposes are typically used for a few hours before being replaced… A soldier could be wearing the same mask for weeks or months only replacing the cartridge when expended.
Depends on the respirator… I wasn’t talking about the oxygenated stuff. But fair enough there too much equipment there that’s used for different purposes than I should just generalize for. I’ll modify my statement.
I had a beard while in (Norwegian combat engineer). You can pull the mask as tight as a homophobic preachers sphincter in a pride parade and it will never be completely sealed. After the first time it was voluntary to pull off the mask while testing using CS, I used to take it off as I was exposed already. In a war situation I would be smooth as Flipper in a second
My friend was in the army and told me he got a special exception and didn’t have to shave as often. But that was the army, and his job mostly involved setting up communications equipment, so maybe that matters.
Thanks for the insight. Glad Lemmy can give context for worrying articles like these.
Correct, that is the “profile” I was referencing. Any medical condition that requires deviation from the “standard” is written up as a profile and is approve by the medical captain (which is normally your unit’s doctor, medics work under them). In this case, it would be referenced as a “shaving profile”. I’m not a medic, I have no idea what standards/problems get you a permanent profile. I do know that transitional or temporary issues would just net you a few weeks of having the profile until it cleared up.
But you made me realize one thing I missed. I was also speaking from the context of Army. Marines are much more likely to be at the front lines or in events that may need masks. It’s one thing to let a cook or mechanic have a permanent profile. It’s another when it’s a front-line warrior (as all marines are trained to be, much more so than the Army) who’s much more likely to be exposed to airborne chemical attacks. I would presume that this standard would be even more strictly enforced there simply because of the missions they are assigned.
A little more context. I was attached to a pathfinder unit (which dates me a bit since those are all disbanded at this point). We weren’t necessarily “elite” but as close as you get short of going special forces or ranger units. These guys would air drop into areas and do all sorts of cools shit with special equipment (Edit: cutting open downed helicopters was literally a mission assigned to us, so imagine a group of a dozen dudes air dropped into an area hunting down downed aircraft to cut out sensitive gear [can’t leave it behind for the enemy] and rescuing pilots. /Edit). While deployed, they had their masks on them even though there weren’t all that many cases of chemical warfare at that stage of the deployment. It’s just how it goes. You have the equipment you need on you, or you risk dying. If equipment failed you while you were airdropped in, you can easily break limbs and be stranded. Missions can be hard… for certain groups excessively so. War isn’t pleasant.
I can admit that it does affect the black community more than any other. And that sucks. But when the “fix” for this “racism” is people dying while deployed… I can’t feel “bad” about it. Less of my brothers dying to preventable things is ALWAYS good. It sucks… and I’m sure that it’s abused to some extent by some leadership that are actually racist. But there’s very real problems behind the scenes that makes it something that must be considered.
Here’s the rub though, you can’t have soldiers that can’t put on NBC masks and keep them deployable.
There are plenty of jobs to be done away from front lines, are there not? I have never served, but it seems like there ought to be lots and lots of jobs where people are cogs in a machine in offices and the like. Please inform me why soldiers can’t get rotated to such positions to keep them employed.
All soldiers undergo basic training. Basics of infantry because everyone is considered first and foremost infantry. After that you’re trained in your selected job position. For the Army this is AIT (Advanced Individual Training), your AIT is based on the job you took (MOS). I was initially a 13M, I shot rockets out of a tracked vehicle called MLRS. I then reclassed to Unit Supply (92Y) for a myriad of personal reasons.
Your selected MOS puts you in specific training to do that job. A wheel vehicle mechanic knows different things than a track vehicle mechanic. So even positions that seem on paper closely related can have wildly different training. This makes it hard to simply swap people without retraining which is a massive cost.
Unit supply is trained on different regulations than the IT people running even though they’re often side by side at headquarters. Different processes, papers, and regulations for different paper pushing jobs. “paper pushing” jobs are often not trained in advanced warfighting operations like clearing villages vs clearing singular rooms shown in basic training. Or operating heavier weaponry vs just what you get during US weapons training in basic.
But ultimately everyone is (in a perfect world situation) deployable… even the totally not combat related chef (Culinary Specialist 92G) gets deployed to warzones because soldiers need to be fed. Do you want to disadvantage the guy working a non-combat job in a warzone in case the FOB or base gets bombed/gassed?
It’s kind of a fucked position to say that anyone at any time can be deployed… but this specific group will be at a much higher risk of dying because a physical condition can’t be accommodated for reasonably… But you’re going anyway!
The alternative is to say a specific group can’t be deployed because of the a condition and thus they get to fill stateside slots permanently which now affects everyone else quite negatively as they will need to deploy more often.
There is no “win” here, nor reasonable equity to be had without accepting that people will die because of the position. Now, personally, I’m in the position where I want to see less of my people die wherever possible… In this case the only answer that makes sense is to not put them in dangers way from the get-go, but that makes them unemployable… which ultimately means they shouldn’t be in service at all. Which sucks as a position. But I don’t see an alternative answer.
And to make a note… The article is specifically referencing Marines… They’re a much more extreme version of this… Even the logistics/operational MOS is trained to be infantry first and foremost and expected to maintain infantry readiness much more so than other branches of the military. In the Army, most non-combat positions are expected to lose a lot of combat effectiveness over time as they train those skills much less.
Edit: I guess TL;DR, we don’t build units to be non-deployable as that’s counter to the job/point of the military… And we don’t get to pick and choose what the enemy attacks. My FOB was attacked a bunch (mortared at least every other day), and we weren’t near anything that I would consider “front lines”.
Wild how its never been an issue since WW2 and now ALL of a sudden it is an issue. When I was in folks had waivers. We did the gas chambers fine. But mmmkay its clearly not anything to do with a race of people who get razor bumps like crazy.
So you’re under some mythical belief that gas warfare hasn’t been a problem since WW2… That’s wild. So if it’s such a non-issue… Why did you get the training?
Well you are looking at 2 different things here. We are at point where we both care about the lives of minorities and have not solved the gas mask problem without a full hood. Maybe this changes faster since more black men cannot serve? Maybe not, only time will tell.
So you’re saying there’s a gender that are generally worse shots and their bodies don’t tend to fit gas masks very well? Why would we let those people serve in the military?
What does that have to do with a beard being a problem for wearing gas masks? Can you articulate any reasonable link between “a lot less and finer facial hair.” to a full beard being a problem?
Edit: Ran into your other comment… Are you claiming that Women shoot better than men and fit gas masks better? It seems unclear what your intent is here.
Women don’t tend to have, at military age, noticable beards at all.
Plus are generally better shots.
We could talk about trans people, but the us military already has a ban.
I’m sure a big strapping young man can swing a sword wonderfully, but that just doesn’t mean as much in modern war as the ability to sleep comfortably in a smaller bunk, reliably don a gas mask, or accurately hit a target with a gun.
I think this sop to masculine vanity is hurting the readiness of our armed forces, and it’s silly. People who are not suitable and not useful should not serve, and we shouldn’t waste tax money appeasing their egos.
So what does that have to do with this article of men being medically discharged from the military? I see nothing relevant.
Let’s look at your nonsense though…
Women don’t tend to have, at military age, noticable beards at all.
I can accept this. This is true. However, that’s not the problem it’s not a matter of IF they have beards or not… it’s a matter of being able to REMOVE those beards for the use of the equipment.
ability to sleep comfortably in a smaller bunk
Non-issue. We built our own hooches while deployed. Just give the soldiers wood and screws… they’ll build what they need. There is no “smaller” or “larger” bunk requirement. Soldiers in general are also pretty much masters of sleeping literally anywhere they can.
reliably don a gas mask
Than a clean shaven man? I wouldn’t make that argument, if anything hair being equal… it’s the same between both genders. Getting over a ponytail or bun would be a pain in the ass in my opinion which isn’t available to the male gender in the military. Though I don’t know. I guess I could ask my wife, but I’m not interested in dragging her into some internet slapfight about sexism. I have longer hair now (past my shoulders) and it’s much more a pain in the ass than it was when I was in service, I guess I could put my hair up and try it and see… but I’m over pandering to random internet trolls.
Plus are generally better shots.
Under what conditions? What evidence do you have of this?
or accurately hit a target with a gun.
Carrying 150 lbs of equipment 10 miles and then getting into a firefight? Or on a civilian range where everything is comfortable and easy? Everyone range trainer I’ve talked to on this says it’s easier to train women… Not that they’re better overall. I am definitely a significantly better shot than my wife (she’s also a Veteran). But that’s a sample size of 2, so I try to ignore that.
But I have a feeling these were not the answers you were looking for.
Cool. So you were in the navy, air force, space force, or…???
ability to remove
And if they never have any in the first place?
clean shaven man
But cis women dont need work and extra toiletries to meet this standard by default. Can meet it after months behind enemy lines without extra effort or hours.
generally better shots
Lower avrg center of gravity is the big reason i remember, plus more points to brace from, if you’ve seen women carry heavy things.
150 lbs
Need a little less, and tebd to carry it better, but i know my aunt and i always made my dad look silly when we’d shoot on family camping trips, and those two got competitive about everything. I don’t think we were carrying 150, but it was a pretty serious hiking family, and i was a literal child.
First off… Copy and paste is free. Quote me accurately. I’ve already mentioned several times that I was Army.
But cis women dont need work and extra toiletries to meet this standard by default. Can meet it after months behind enemy lines without extra effort or hours.
Are you shitting me? Cis women don’t need extra toiletries? For MONTHS behind enemy lines? Shaving equipment is a handle and a few blades… and water. Where women would require pads, tampons, etc… right? I can keep a handle and blade in my pocket next to my knife (which also works as a makeshift shaving device btw…) and the granola bar I got out of my last MRE. Taking little space and next to no additional weight. You’ve got no idea.
Lower avrg center of gravity is the big reason i remember, plus more points to brace from, if you’ve seen women carry heavy things.
So then you have no idea what you’re even talking about since you need to “remember” it. And no… there are no magical addition points to brace from for a women in regards to carrying things in a combat situation. You need to keep your arms available to use your weapon. The only place to put equipment in on your kit or on your back. There is no additional mount points that either gender would have over the other.
I don’t think we were carrying 150
You weren’t carrying all your equipment in a war zone. Body armor, weapon, heavy clothes, radios, bags, nods, additional equipment… It tallys up quickly… Especially if you’re a crew gunner… or ammo carrier for the crew gunner. You cannot compare your civilian shit to active war. This is why I end up in these comments more often than I’d like… people like you seem to dream what the warfighter does and equate it to some random hike you took a couple times as a child… Not realizing the world of difference that it is. I’ve seen soldiers carrying Mk19’s around post for PT… that fucking thing is like 80 lbs on it’s own, forget the ammo.
At this point I’m disengaging with you. Feel free to get the last sentence in. But it’s clear you have no idea, and no interest in listening to those that do.
The fuck is wrong with you? If you have an opinion about war, write your senator. Being disrespectful to a person that served and otherwise did nothing wrong is disgraceful.
Lmfao. You’re complaining about downvotes when people use them correctly. Remember downvotes are supposed to be used to measure how relevant/useful a topic is to a conversation. Unfortunately your feelings about specific service members, or the group as a whole is irrelevant to the discussion about the grooming rules of the military.
Just remember, you think everyone else needs to get a life… You came to this post knowing that you dislike the military specifically to spew random hatred at people who didn’t even interact with you.
Yet another “anti-military” article from people who clearly don’t understand the military.
Hi… It’s me again. Army Veteran. Showing up in the comments of another military article because there is clear and obvious reasons why this is happening that has nothing to do with Trump (Not sure why so many other commenters jump on this every time). Claiming that this is racist is crazy when the purpose and reason for it is innately to stop people from dying unnecessarily. If you think this is racism, I’d argue that it’s not. I’d also argue that ignoring the medical problem can actually kill those you think you’re protecting from “racism”.
This is not new. While I was in (primarily under Obama) people with problematic beard hair would need to be medically evaluated. At one point I was evaluated as razor bumps kept coming up for a little while (cleared up eventually though). The primary reason for the military caring about it is because NBC masks need to fit particularly well in order for them to do their jobs. For those who don’t know what NBC means, gas masks. Nothing sucks more than doing gas chamber training and getting a mask that doesn’t fit well. Considering the current world capabilities, it would be a disaster to send a unit out and have them all get nailed with mustard gas and have just the “black” (quoting this because it’s inaccurate, I saw many people need a profile over bad shaves. a plurality were actually black) people die because with hair, you can’t get a good seal, and with the bumps, you can’t get a good seal.
Now up to this point, I’ve said terms like “profile” and “medically evaluated”, none of these things innately remove you from service unless it’s extreme (or fails to clear up over significant time). The only thing moving forward is that if it doesn’t clear up they want to medically discharge you from service. Here’s the rub though, you can’t have soldiers that can’t put on NBC masks and keep them deployable. It’s a basic core task. War is war, it’s nasty. The headline that gets written in the worst case scenario is “Black soldiers die in mass NBC attack because mask seals don’t work” is the alternative here. This consideration HAS to be addressed when you expect war to kick up (Iran, anyone?). This is a problem… And in my time, I’ve seen a handful (very few) people hide behind this condition to do less work than their peers, especially to dodge deployable statuses and NBC chamber training.
Lastly, if you read the article “The recent policy update under Brig. Gen. David R. Everly reversed a 2022 rule”. This “rule” is very new and was likely found to harm wartime readiness after trying it out. The people getting kicked out would be relatively new recruits in their first enlistment. I can only imagine how much worse their experience was in many training exercises because of the ill-fitting masks, and honestly, I don’t really see an alternative that doesn’t potentially sacrifice their lives should they deploy. These soldiers will have already served sufficiently to obtain their benefits and it would be a medical discharge, which is not a dishonorable discharge. They would keep any benefits that they had obtained through their service.
And to preempt an argument… “there’s no study that says beards/razor bumps interfere with gas masks”… There are. Most of them say minimal beards/hair is fine (less than 1/16th of an inch) to get a mask seal, where 1/8 can already lead to issues. But it’s understudied. The risk of getting it wrong is people’s lives.
Edit: Typo
Edit2: Reported by a blahaj.zone user…
Lmfao. Apparently pointing out that this was a thing for a long time and restating information in the article itself is misinformation…
Your comment has caused me to re-evaluate my perspective; thanks for sharing. The situation is more nuanced than I realised.
deleted by creator
Likely according to what evidence? You’re making an assumption here. I have zero reason to assume good faith with Trump and Hegseth changing anything right now, why should you?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29283316/ from 2018 says there’s problems with even really short lengths of beard…
But you’re correct in that I don’t have any evidence that the military found or validated the same findings internally. I think it’s more likely than not though.
Edit: Actually I do have some minor proof that they know there’s issues… But it’s covered in the same “it’s really understudied” caveat that I put in the post itself. Not worth really discussing IMO.
Edit2: I’d even disbelieve that Trump knows enough about the military to find out that they could use this to be frank…
You are making claims that weren’t in the article. That studies conclusiion were
“Conclusion: Beard length and areal density negatively influence FF. However, tight-fitting half-face negative-pressure respirator fit tests can achieve adequate fit factor scores even with substantial facial hair in the face seal area.”
Plus your original claim was that razor bumps would negatively impact the fit, not short length beards. You’re moving the goalposts.
No it wasn’t… but you go ahead and keep lying to yourself. You can scroll up and read it for yourself.
Note that the quoted section is not “me” saying it, but a response to that general topic/discussion.
But we’ve already discussed this ad nauseam, so you can stop following me around now.
You are conflating razor bumps with a 1/8" beard. There aren’t studies that evaluate mask fittings with razor bumps, you’re just adding that to suit your argument.
"While many military leaders defending the beard prohibition have repeated the claim that beards break gas mask seals, one Air Force doctor has found no direct scientific evidence to support it.
“It’s an unsubstantiated claim,” said Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie, a dermatologist who last year published a study on the beard prohibition’s discriminatory effect on Black airmen. While supporters of current Air Force policy “may have anecdotal evidence of one to five people who they see fail the fit test,” he said, “that can’t be extrapolated to hundreds of thousands of airmen.”
I’ve never been in the military, but I can guarantee I’ve had to wear a full face respirator rated for organic solvents more often than you. Imo beards have minimal effects on getting a decent seal. My hospital makes us do a fit test every 3-4 weeks, and I’ve passed with a beard longer than a 1/4" plenty of times.
In reality the shape of your face and the brand of your mask has a lot more to do with passing a fit test more than anything. I can guarantee that razor bumps aren’t going to make a difference.
One doctor, out of all of em? Some anti-vaccine type of stupid right there
More than the amount of doctors who found direct scientific evidence …
The guy wrote a paper about it and tried to find any evidence to support the new rules, he didn’t find any.
So then you have no clue what the M50 respirator fits like then…
Weird guarantee to make when you have no fucking clue who I am or what I do… I even told you from my post that I have a full face respirator still. Would be weird to have one and not be using it no? But now this devolves into a pissing contest, which I’m not particularly interested in participating in.
Edit: Additionally… the risk of whatever you’re doing in the hospital is much lower than Sarin gas or other wartime gaseous weapons. A bad seal for you might make you a little dizzy or you have to take a break and re-seal/replace your respirator, where a bad seal on the battle field would simply mean death.
Lol, no we have to wear butyl respirators and do monthly fit tests because we work with extremely dangerous chemicals. Some of which do have a NFPA rating of 4, the same as Sarin.
Lol, I imagine it fits like any butyl rubber respirator. They aren’t making them specifically worse just for the military.
I mean, did you wear your respirator multiple hours everyday for more than ten years? Unless you were working in a lab for the military I highly doubt you spent much time in your PPE.
Not really? Unless you use it for your job a lot of people will have one they seldomly use at home for small projects like painting.
Your basing all of your argument on anecdotal evidence… Of course bits going to divulge into a pissing contest. That’s why I posted a source stating that there was no evidence supporting your claim…you know the part that you ignored.
Just being in the military isn’t evidence, we have no idea what you mos was or how long you were in for. For all we know you could have just been a pog in the national guard for 4 years.
Well… about that.
Oh boy… you don’t know about military contracts do you?
You posted quotes with no source. Which is why I ignored it.
But fine… let’s address these unsourced quotes since that’s what you’re hung up on.
Cool… one guy says it’s not a problem. Here’s an actual study. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29283316/
I agree with him… it is discriminatory. But when the effect of that discrimination is less potential death on a battlefield…
The problem with this though is that services give profiles/chits for shaving… So those people often will not participate in mask training at all… Can’t find what you’re not even looking for. So just saying “anecdotal”… well yeah, that’s all there is if he’s not actively researching it. And as seen above, when research is done… it shows exactly what I said it shows, because I’m basing my opinion on my lived experience and the research that supports that. As I said though, it is under-researched…
And lastly…
Which the military standardized on one specific model of mask… so picking a choosing a brand is kind of out of the question now isn’t it?
I would like to pose a different question for you then… Assuming that you have the 1/4" or longer facial hair now that you claim you wear… Would you be confident that you could run in it for a football field carrying gear and shooting a gun for hours without losing the seal?
Edit: Bad wording…
So your mask didn’t work then…?
you are exhaustingly pedantic…
" Beard length and areal density negatively influence FF. However, tight-fitting half-face negative-pressure respirator fit tests can achieve adequate fit factor scores even with substantial facial hair in the face seal area"
I don’t really think one could really claim that a 2% reduction in effectiveness quantifies as beards break gas mask seals.
That’s what the whole argument was about.
Again, you haven’t substantiated your claim about bumps effecting seals… You haven’t even substantiated that beards break seals.
So no, you can’t claim it would save lives. Plus, the majority of people serving in the military arent in combat positions.
I don’t think you read that paper correctly…
That doesn’t have anything to do with your facial hair…does it?
I don’t have a beard atm, but I would be just as confident doing that with or without the beard.
Wouldn’t know. Didn’t try to wear it without being clean shaven (or close enough/stubble).
Because I’m choosing to ignore something that you could have linked to? Sure… I’m pedantic then.
out of thousands of soldiers? out of thousands of applications of the mask during an attack? 2% is a large number…
The sourced document that I provided and clearly you read proved to you that beards will break seals. From the study “Beard length and areal density, but not coarseness, were statistically significant predictors of fit”. If length and density were not relevant to the matter then they would have stated so. But it is. So it is. Poor fit is a bad seal. The study showed no issue for up to 0.063 inches of hair… pull out a caliper and check that length… That is VERY short. I can grow that in probably 2-3 days. Hell even 0.125 is pretty short… and that’s where there’s already fall off and failures in getting seals. You are now arguing that it’s okay for 2% of military members to die during a chemical attack just because they want to have a bit more than stubble… This is a crazy stance to accept.
Can’t choose what gets attacked… The enemy chooses that.
I didn’t bring it up did I? You did.
I have to assume that this is “not at all” confidence for both scenarios then.
Honestly though I’m still reeling from you comparing your job of just handling some chemicals to an airborne chemical attack situation that would aerosolise the chemical…
I meant without… Though I doubt you spent much time in it. What was your mos again…? Never answered that. I’m guessing based on the fact that you’re non Lemmy it wasn’t infantry… I’m guessing you were on a computer most of the time.
Reduction in effectiveness does not mean failure you dolt.
Lol, again ignoring the part where you claimed that razor bumps affected seals…you aren’t arguing in good faith. You are also making conclur not made by the original source.
Lol… With chemical weapons?
My claim was that facial hair has little to do with a good seal, and that facial shape and brand has more to do with it.
Your argument is that it’s facial hair not, so the brand doesn’t do anything to support you argument.
And the argument is about facial hair… Remember? I like how you constantly they to redirect the argument away from your original claim… really helpful.
Honestly surprised your arguing with some with a degree in chemistry when your only experience was probably in basic training. You deal with a lot of Sarin attacks in the 4 years of doing IT for the army?
At this point we’re getting nowhere… When you say shit like “With chemical weapons?”… Yes we’re talking about literal war… where soldiers are the ones following these policies. This is literally the primary place chemical weapons are used as far as all of known recorded history.
OSHA, ANSI, all branches of DOD and the study agree with me… You can argue whatever you want, I’m disengaging.
OSHA paragraph (g)(1) of 29 CFR 1910.134 ANSI Z88.10
You basically admitted to breaking OSHA rules though. So congrats!
You didn’t refute his source at all.
Those were quotes…
not sources<edit>weakly sourced without any validation</edit>. I specifically ignored them because they were <edit>effectively</edit> unsourced. I’m not going to hunt down that quote to validate it was ever even said.General Grievous says “[email protected] is lying about the quotes they provided. Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie was relieved of duty for malpractice years ago dishonorably.”
But fine, I addressed them following their comment. Read about it there.
Edit: pedantry I guess?
I am really trying to square this circle…
Quote
Source
The above are quotes… from a source… in this case the sources being https://www.dictionary.com/browse/quote and https://www.dictionary.com/browse/source
The problem with simply using a name as a “source” in this context… This lemmy user didn’t talk to that Lt. Col. so that lemmy user can’t be a source to say that the Col said anything… They took that quote from somewhere else… and didn’t cite that source. So it goes unsourced as the origin of where the quote is derived was not disclosed. Much the same as we both know that General Grievous from my previous comment is a fictional character and definitely didn’t say anything of that sort… Yet I “quoted” it… with no source to prove that anything was ever actually said. Quoting something without a citation to the source where you obtain the quote is effectively pointless on the internet.
Edit: Google shows a number of sources for the quote… https://taskandpurpose.com/news/military-beards-break-gas-mask-seal/ being one of them.
This same article goes on to show the same study that I posted elsewhere though… with a bizarre stance on the results though…
Not sure why 98% is acceptable to them… but is what it is. I don’t particularly find the number acceptable considering it’s entirely preventable deaths that could be stopped.
See… I provided the source… and the quote. There is no concern about me having made shit up because you can see it for yourself without hunting for the source yourself.
You can type all that, still funny when you know that a quote with a name is a source. Since you know the quotes source is that named person. Not really relevant if it is a correct quote or not, as a sourced lie is a thing as well.
I mean its right there in your own example “…to cite, offer, or bring forward as evidence or support.”
Cool then you must accept my previous statement of
General Grievous says “[email protected] is lying about the quotes they provided. Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie was relieved of duty for malpractice years ago dishonorably.”
It’s a quote, attributed to a name. Right?
Edit: Would you feel better if I change the verbiage to “I wasn’t given a good source” or “validated source”?
We’re not in a trial case…
If I wanted to be as much of a pain in the ass. None of your claims about being in the service are admissible in nerd court apparently.
You’d think we’d have the technology to invent a shaving device that made faces mask-ready
You’d think we’d have masks that don’t completely fail to do their job because you have .002 femtometers of hair sticking out of your face.
I’m just here trying to figure out how many hours does it take to grow your beard before you lose seal. Do you need to stop combat to shave every 12h? 6h? 1h? I need to know!
Maybe I should be a mask designer.
Fun fact, we have!
This is racist horseshit and refusal to equip soldiers properly. Or more accurately, Marines who I’d wish were a little more vocal about the blatant fascism these days
I don’t see anywhere where it says to be compatible with a beard. Also, it says it protects from sandblasting and asbestos. Tear gas and the like are a very diffefent beast and get through smaller openings.
Even if we did… getting and keeping whatever that device would be functional on a battlefield is a whole different ball-game…
War sucks…
Edit: The easiest answer is a standard razor blade. It’s easy, simple, and light (and reuseable if needed… as much as they’re not really supposed to be). But that’s what causes problems.
The easiest answer for white guys with no razor burn.
Or we could invent SCBA and full face masks and stop pretending this was ever about NBC
The m50 is a full face mask…
Clearly we need a full body mask, no need to seal against skin. Or even a full head mask that you tighten around your neck…
I was coming in here to disagree with you, because I’ve heard this same thing, but I won’t argue a point unless I check my sources first, and sure enough, you’re correct (except maybe that stubble is fine). OSHA even states that tight-fitting respirators are not to be used by those with facial hair that extends past/across the seal. So one could argue that if wearing a gas mask is a requirement, anybody who has facial hair (other than a trimmed moustache) is unable to fulfill that requirement by OSHA rules alone.
Yeah it wasn’t an OSHA study that I was referencing…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29283316
With military articles like https://taskandpurpose.com/news/military-beards-break-gas-mask-seal/ stating
So 2 out of 100 people using masks that are relatively similar to the military M50 would be at risk at 1/8th inch beard. Which is not a whole lot of hair… Like 3-4 days of growth (for me). 1/16 or less seemed to be 100% rates… But the big caveat here is that the fit-test doesn’t adequately capture the rigor and activity that one might do in the military… So it seems logical that much more leakage will happen at every level.
But OSHA, ANSI, every branch of the DoD, and every study (though minimal) agrees with the fact that beard hair in of itself is a no go.
Example navy document… https://www.med.navy.mil/Portals/62/Documents/NMFA/NMCPHC/root/Industrial Hygiene/RESPIRATOR-SPECIAL-PROBLEMS.pdf?ver=Ng19UESJUtWmwvoHSABW-w%3D%3D There’s a fun graph on table 2.
Thanks for the additional context
The funny part is that I said basically this exact same thing in another thread, and got shouted down with “lul gas masks seal fine over a beard” types of comments.
Yeah… I expected those here as well… thus the “and to preempt an argument” section.
I’m out of the military now… I oftentimes let my beard get longer… I can promise you(anyone) that masks don’t fit nearly as well. I have a personal full face respirator for a number of reasons. It doesn’t seal nearly as well when my beard is anything beyond basic stubble for me. First the beard changes your face shape, second hair doesn’t compress well unless you really crank on the straps and thus by nature the seal becomes uneven since hair moves and clumps, third when you crank on the straps… it fucking hurts after a while. Turns out people in general don’t like having their face compressed.
Now you want to apply those problems to a warzone… Where the first and second will make donning your mask considerably harder when you’re under fire… and the third will make it more likely that people will want to remove the mask or make worse choices because they’re in literal pain wearing the mask.
It’s one thing if you’re only wearing the mask in a fire or something and a nominal amount of carbon monoxide gets through… Mustard gas or other agents could be outright deadly at very low doses.
Edit: Oh another difference… Consumer shit isn’t meant to be worn for days on end… So it tends to be softer/pliable. Which can contour and fit more shapes/beards and such… Military NBC equipment isn’t this way. It’s mean to be worn for considerably longer and perform to a much different standard. They much more rigid, which adds to the problem a bit… less flexible overall because it needs to be a more resistant rubber/plastic. A respirator for a
firefighter getscivilian purposes are typically used for a few hours before being replaced… A soldier could be wearing the same mask for weeks or months only replacing the cartridge when expended.Firefighters don’t replace their masks after hours.
Depends on the respirator… I wasn’t talking about the oxygenated stuff. But fair enough there too much equipment there that’s used for different purposes than I should just generalize for. I’ll modify my statement.
I had a beard while in (Norwegian combat engineer). You can pull the mask as tight as a homophobic preachers sphincter in a pride parade and it will never be completely sealed. After the first time it was voluntary to pull off the mask while testing using CS, I used to take it off as I was exposed already. In a war situation I would be smooth as Flipper in a second
Fucking men thinking they should be the ones fighting wars. They’re worse shots, they can’t wear gas masks, they take up more space in transports…
Thank you.
Don’t thank me… Thank my recruiter.
I appreciate the help navigating around the clickbait.
My friend was in the army and told me he got a special exception and didn’t have to shave as often. But that was the army, and his job mostly involved setting up communications equipment, so maybe that matters.
Thanks for the insight. Glad Lemmy can give context for worrying articles like these.
Correct, that is the “profile” I was referencing. Any medical condition that requires deviation from the “standard” is written up as a profile and is approve by the medical captain (which is normally your unit’s doctor, medics work under them). In this case, it would be referenced as a “shaving profile”. I’m not a medic, I have no idea what standards/problems get you a permanent profile. I do know that transitional or temporary issues would just net you a few weeks of having the profile until it cleared up.
But you made me realize one thing I missed. I was also speaking from the context of Army. Marines are much more likely to be at the front lines or in events that may need masks. It’s one thing to let a cook or mechanic have a permanent profile. It’s another when it’s a front-line warrior (as all marines are trained to be, much more so than the Army) who’s much more likely to be exposed to airborne chemical attacks. I would presume that this standard would be even more strictly enforced there simply because of the missions they are assigned.
A little more context. I was attached to a pathfinder unit (which dates me a bit since those are all disbanded at this point). We weren’t necessarily “elite” but as close as you get short of going special forces or ranger units. These guys would air drop into areas and do all sorts of cools shit with special equipment (Edit: cutting open downed helicopters was literally a mission assigned to us, so imagine a group of a dozen dudes air dropped into an area hunting down downed aircraft to cut out sensitive gear [can’t leave it behind for the enemy] and rescuing pilots. /Edit). While deployed, they had their masks on them even though there weren’t all that many cases of chemical warfare at that stage of the deployment. It’s just how it goes. You have the equipment you need on you, or you risk dying. If equipment failed you while you were airdropped in, you can easily break limbs and be stranded. Missions can be hard… for certain groups excessively so. War isn’t pleasant.
I can admit that it does affect the black community more than any other. And that sucks. But when the “fix” for this “racism” is people dying while deployed… I can’t feel “bad” about it. Less of my brothers dying to preventable things is ALWAYS good. It sucks… and I’m sure that it’s abused to some extent by some leadership that are actually racist. But there’s very real problems behind the scenes that makes it something that must be considered.
There are plenty of jobs to be done away from front lines, are there not? I have never served, but it seems like there ought to be lots and lots of jobs where people are cogs in a machine in offices and the like. Please inform me why soldiers can’t get rotated to such positions to keep them employed.
All soldiers undergo basic training. Basics of infantry because everyone is considered first and foremost infantry. After that you’re trained in your selected job position. For the Army this is AIT (Advanced Individual Training), your AIT is based on the job you took (MOS). I was initially a 13M, I shot rockets out of a tracked vehicle called MLRS. I then reclassed to Unit Supply (92Y) for a myriad of personal reasons.
Your selected MOS puts you in specific training to do that job. A wheel vehicle mechanic knows different things than a track vehicle mechanic. So even positions that seem on paper closely related can have wildly different training. This makes it hard to simply swap people without retraining which is a massive cost.
Unit supply is trained on different regulations than the IT people running even though they’re often side by side at headquarters. Different processes, papers, and regulations for different paper pushing jobs. “paper pushing” jobs are often not trained in advanced warfighting operations like clearing villages vs clearing singular rooms shown in basic training. Or operating heavier weaponry vs just what you get during US weapons training in basic.
But ultimately everyone is (in a perfect world situation) deployable… even the totally not combat related chef (Culinary Specialist 92G) gets deployed to warzones because soldiers need to be fed. Do you want to disadvantage the guy working a non-combat job in a warzone in case the FOB or base gets bombed/gassed?
It’s kind of a fucked position to say that anyone at any time can be deployed… but this specific group will be at a much higher risk of dying because a physical condition can’t be accommodated for reasonably… But you’re going anyway!
The alternative is to say a specific group can’t be deployed because of the a condition and thus they get to fill stateside slots permanently which now affects everyone else quite negatively as they will need to deploy more often.
There is no “win” here, nor reasonable equity to be had without accepting that people will die because of the position. Now, personally, I’m in the position where I want to see less of my people die wherever possible… In this case the only answer that makes sense is to not put them in dangers way from the get-go, but that makes them unemployable… which ultimately means they shouldn’t be in service at all. Which sucks as a position. But I don’t see an alternative answer.
And to make a note… The article is specifically referencing Marines… They’re a much more extreme version of this… Even the logistics/operational MOS is trained to be infantry first and foremost and expected to maintain infantry readiness much more so than other branches of the military. In the Army, most non-combat positions are expected to lose a lot of combat effectiveness over time as they train those skills much less.
Edit: I guess TL;DR, we don’t build units to be non-deployable as that’s counter to the job/point of the military… And we don’t get to pick and choose what the enemy attacks. My FOB was attacked a bunch (mortared at least every other day), and we weren’t near anything that I would consider “front lines”.
This is a detailed and considerate response. Thanks. I can absolutely see where you’re coming from now.
If you’ve ever wondered what sanewashing looks like, the above comment is your example.
Wild how its never been an issue since WW2 and now ALL of a sudden it is an issue. When I was in folks had waivers. We did the gas chambers fine. But mmmkay its clearly not anything to do with a race of people who get razor bumps like crazy.
So you’re under some mythical belief that gas warfare hasn’t been a problem since WW2… That’s wild. So if it’s such a non-issue… Why did you get the training?
Removed by mod
Well you are looking at 2 different things here. We are at point where we both care about the lives of minorities and have not solved the gas mask problem without a full hood. Maybe this changes faster since more black men cannot serve? Maybe not, only time will tell.
So you’re saying there’s a gender that are generally worse shots and their bodies don’t tend to fit gas masks very well? Why would we let those people serve in the military?
I didn’t say or reference anything about gender. Go troll someone else. I met and married my wife while in service. We’re both veterans.
Well, trans people aren’t allowed anymore, and women tend to have a lot less and finer facial hair.
It’s not your main point, but is it untrue?
What does that have to do with a beard being a problem for wearing gas masks? Can you articulate any reasonable link between “a lot less and finer facial hair.” to a full beard being a problem?
Edit: Ran into your other comment… Are you claiming that Women shoot better than men and fit gas masks better? It seems unclear what your intent is here.
Women don’t tend to have, at military age, noticable beards at all.
Plus are generally better shots.
We could talk about trans people, but the us military already has a ban.
I’m sure a big strapping young man can swing a sword wonderfully, but that just doesn’t mean as much in modern war as the ability to sleep comfortably in a smaller bunk, reliably don a gas mask, or accurately hit a target with a gun.
I think this sop to masculine vanity is hurting the readiness of our armed forces, and it’s silly. People who are not suitable and not useful should not serve, and we shouldn’t waste tax money appeasing their egos.
So what does that have to do with this article of men being medically discharged from the military? I see nothing relevant.
Let’s look at your nonsense though…
I can accept this. This is true. However, that’s not the problem it’s not a matter of IF they have beards or not… it’s a matter of being able to REMOVE those beards for the use of the equipment.
Non-issue. We built our own hooches while deployed. Just give the soldiers wood and screws… they’ll build what they need. There is no “smaller” or “larger” bunk requirement. Soldiers in general are also pretty much masters of sleeping literally anywhere they can.
Than a clean shaven man? I wouldn’t make that argument, if anything hair being equal… it’s the same between both genders. Getting over a ponytail or bun would be a pain in the ass in my opinion which isn’t available to the male gender in the military. Though I don’t know. I guess I could ask my wife, but I’m not interested in dragging her into some internet slapfight about sexism. I have longer hair now (past my shoulders) and it’s much more a pain in the ass than it was when I was in service, I guess I could put my hair up and try it and see… but I’m over pandering to random internet trolls.
Under what conditions? What evidence do you have of this?
Carrying 150 lbs of equipment 10 miles and then getting into a firefight? Or on a civilian range where everything is comfortable and easy? Everyone range trainer I’ve talked to on this says it’s easier to train women… Not that they’re better overall. I am definitely a significantly better shot than my wife (she’s also a Veteran). But that’s a sample size of 2, so I try to ignore that.
But I have a feeling these were not the answers you were looking for.
Cool. So you were in the navy, air force, space force, or…???
And if they never have any in the first place?
But cis women dont need work and extra toiletries to meet this standard by default. Can meet it after months behind enemy lines without extra effort or hours.
Lower avrg center of gravity is the big reason i remember, plus more points to brace from, if you’ve seen women carry heavy things.
Need a little less, and tebd to carry it better, but i know my aunt and i always made my dad look silly when we’d shoot on family camping trips, and those two got competitive about everything. I don’t think we were carrying 150, but it was a pretty serious hiking family, and i was a literal child.
First off… Copy and paste is free. Quote me accurately. I’ve already mentioned several times that I was Army.
Are you shitting me? Cis women don’t need extra toiletries? For MONTHS behind enemy lines? Shaving equipment is a handle and a few blades… and water. Where women would require pads, tampons, etc… right? I can keep a handle and blade in my pocket next to my knife (which also works as a makeshift shaving device btw…) and the granola bar I got out of my last MRE. Taking little space and next to no additional weight. You’ve got no idea.
So then you have no idea what you’re even talking about since you need to “remember” it. And no… there are no magical addition points to brace from for a women in regards to carrying things in a combat situation. You need to keep your arms available to use your weapon. The only place to put equipment in on your kit or on your back. There is no additional mount points that either gender would have over the other.
You weren’t carrying all your equipment in a war zone. Body armor, weapon, heavy clothes, radios, bags, nods, additional equipment… It tallys up quickly… Especially if you’re a crew gunner… or ammo carrier for the crew gunner. You cannot compare your civilian shit to active war. This is why I end up in these comments more often than I’d like… people like you seem to dream what the warfighter does and equate it to some random hike you took a couple times as a child… Not realizing the world of difference that it is. I’ve seen soldiers carrying Mk19’s around post for PT… that fucking thing is like 80 lbs on it’s own, forget the ammo.
At this point I’m disengaging with you. Feel free to get the last sentence in. But it’s clear you have no idea, and no interest in listening to those that do.
No thank you for your service.
Good for you I guess? I fail to see how this adds anything of merit to the conversation.
Edit: They’ve edited their comment…
“No thank you for your service. I hate you”
Removed by mod
Bro, you are basically made of glass LMAO 🤣
Whatever float your boat. Have a pleasant evening!
The fuck is wrong with you? If you have an opinion about war, write your senator. Being disrespectful to a person that served and otherwise did nothing wrong is disgraceful.
I don’t respect soldiers or cops. Fuck them. And to the people who downvoted all my comments get a fucking life LOL.
Lmfao. You’re complaining about downvotes when people use them correctly. Remember downvotes are supposed to be used to measure how relevant/useful a topic is to a conversation. Unfortunately your feelings about specific service members, or the group as a whole is irrelevant to the discussion about the grooming rules of the military.
Just remember, you think everyone else needs to get a life… You came to this post knowing that you dislike the military specifically to spew random hatred at people who didn’t even interact with you.