As an active
duty Army major and a professed lover of “Army Wives,” I consider the show to
be a civilian-friendly version of some of the events that might happen in “everyday”
Army life. (Life that might happen in situations with gross generalizations and
high-drama one-hour solutions…yet totally addictive!) However, I must take a moment to address an ever-present issue
that continues to surface each season: Col. Joan Burton has worn pearl studs
with her Army Combat Uniform (ACU) in several previous episodes and did so
again in the May 6 “Fallout” episode! Yes, this really happened in television
life even though Army Regulation 670-1 prohibits women from wearing earrings
with the ACU. (And even though I still quietly pray for the glorious day when the
Army finally allows females to wear studs with our ACU…So far 13 years in and
still a no-go. I’ll keep hope alive. I digress…)
Section 1-14
of Chapter 1 in AR 670-1 specifically states, “Females are not authorized to wear earrings with any class C (utility)
uniform (BDU, hospital duty, food service, physical fitness, field, or
organizational).” http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf
Col. Burton
is an awesome character. She is a very positive representative of a soldier,
not to mention a wonderful example of a female servicemember and a woman of
color. She does what’s right, is awesome in the workplace, and works well with
managing/balancing her family life as well. These are all great things for
servicemembers (regardless of rank or cultural background) to emulate…but her on-camera
uniform should reflect reality – as is the case with the male characters on the
show. Producers and/or costume designers should respect the uniform for which
so many are honored to and privileged to wear.
So rewind: What
if real life could imitate art? Why is it that the Army is the only U.S.
military service that doesn’t allow its females to wear earrings? The Air
Force, Navy and even the Marines (yes, I said “even”) allow females to wear
earrings with their service uniform. What’s with the Army…especially in a
garrison environment?
Several of
my male Army comrades have noted that Air Force and Navy females overall
present themselves in a much more polished and ladylike manner than in Army
females. Sadly, I too have noticed this time and time again (apart from myself
and a few other Army females). Apart from the misfortune surrounding stud
earrings, women in the Army can often appear…rough. As did Mama Morton and
Velma E. in Chicago, dare I ask,
“What ever happened to class?”
I totally agree with you Junel! Love your blog!!
ReplyDeletebravissima~! i never did understand why we couldn't were stud earrings with our ACUs. heArt!
ReplyDeleteI personally and professionally do not have a problem with women wearing earrings in ACUs.
ReplyDeleteProfessionally, I think it would add credibility to the words that we publicly speak when characterizing the Army as a professional organization. Not only do our sister services allow females to wear stud earrings but so do our DOD female employees who are required to wear business attire to work. Therefore if earrings are considered a componet of busines attire, for the lack of a better word, why not allow Army females to at least wear it with the ASU. Many changes have been instituted in the recent past - for example, Soldiers must wear the ASU on fridays at the Pentagon. If the ASU represents our "official" business attire, why not let our females wear the studs and look their professional and personal best while personifying the Army look. What say you...?
ReplyDeleteJose: Army females can wear studs in ASUs. It's the ACU thats at odds with the other services...It's not only the earrings, but just the overall look (or often the lack thereof). IJS we can do better.
DeleteMy name is Major George Zeckeler and I am currently a student at the Command and General Staff College, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center's Fort Lee satellite campus. I must say that I agree with your assessment that women should be allowed to wear stud earrings in their ACUs, similar to the other 3 services who allow stud earrings for their females in service uniforms. Who knows, maybe it will happen soon. With recent changes to uniform benefiting females such as the wearing of a "ponytail" in the APFT uniform and other changes like allowing women to serve in combat units, the future is bright for our female service members.
ReplyDeleteRegardless if they allow this earring change or not in the future,
I am proud to serve along our female service members! I have worked with wonderful female officers, NCOs, and Soldiers and have had the fortune of having female mentors who have helped guide me throughout my career. I feel that our Army women already "stand tall and look good" as stated in an earlier entry in this blog. With more and more women in leadership roles and achieving all ranks, I know the Army will continue to lead with wonderful leaders, such as many I have had the fortune of working with and working for.
Thank you for these blog postings and bringing to attention how a TV show may better be able to "respect" our uniform as they present active duty service members on shows like Army Wives. However, I must say that I feel a sense of pride every time I see one of my fine fellow Army Soldiers on the television in ACUs or any other Army uniform.
Please note: the views I have expressed in this blog entry are my own views, written freely and without coercion, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Arbitrary and capricious?
ReplyDeleteI would like to think that the prohibition against the wear of earrings by female Soldiers is founded on some practical and tested principle, that some logic exists to support its existence. Yet, I have my doubts since our sister services permit the wear of studded earrings. I would like to see the battery of tests that indicate that the prohibition is anything but arbitrary; I am open to all positions.
On a similar note, appearance standards have recently drawn a bit of attention with the attempt by the SMA to increase the reach of AR 670-1 to off-duty appearance and apparel. Purpose? Is there some overriding governmental/Army interest that is served? ”Soldier 24-7” has got to be the immediate response, yet before that cliché breaks the plane of your mouth, inquire into the spectrum of activities that could then be regulated on your “off-duty” hours…bikers you may have to put your chaps back in the closet, females no more skirts that show skin, gents shirts/ties/sport coats while in public. Arbitrary? Capricious?
Scott
Please note: the views I have expressed in this blog entry are my own views, written freely and without coercion, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the US Government.