New Navy Uniform Changes--Females now must wear 'Manly' Covers

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/12/23/navy-updates-service-uniforms-for-female-sailors.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl



".....The female combination cover for E-7s and above also will be redesigned to resemble the male version....."

How can this be allowed to happen? First it was the 'Girly' covers that were almost forced on the Marines, and now this!

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/12/23/navy-updates-service-uniforms-for-female-sailors.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl



".....The female combination cover for E-7s and above also will be redesigned to resemble the male version....."

How can this be allowed to happen? First it was the 'Girly' covers that were almost forced on the Marines, and now this!

What's so wrong with that? I do not see a problem here, except maybe with people that are so set in their ways that they cannot accept change of any kind.

Ghost Rider wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/12/23/navy-updates-service-uniforms-for-female-sailors.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl



".....The female combination cover for E-7s and above also will be redesigned to resemble the male version....."

How can this be allowed to happen? First it was the 'Girly' covers that were almost forced on the Marines, and now this!

What's so wrong with that? I do not see a problem here, except maybe with people that are so set in their ways that they cannot accept change of any kind.

whats the practical reason for making these changes? wouldn't it be costly to change all these hats?

does a different hat somehow increase job performance?

I was in the old Navy and it had a wealth of tradition. Practically everything on my uniform had a historical significance. Oh well who gives a flying flip.

Chrissy wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/12/23/navy-updates-service-uniforms-for-female-sailors.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl



".....The female combination cover for E-7s and above also will be redesigned to resemble the male version....."

How can this be allowed to happen? First it was the 'Girly' covers that were almost forced on the Marines, and now this!

What's so wrong with that? I do not see a problem here, except maybe with people that are so set in their ways that they cannot accept change of any kind.

whats the practical reason for making these changes? wouldn't it be costly to change all these hats?

does a different hat somehow increase job performance?

The idea probably comes from the Asian manufacturers of our military uniforms who see a way to produce them more effectively.

Producing them more effectively doesn't mean there is no cost involved.

Chrissy wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/12/23/navy-updates-service-uniforms-for-female-sailors.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl



".....The female combination cover for E-7s and above also will be redesigned to resemble the male version....."

How can this be allowed to happen? First it was the 'Girly' covers that were almost forced on the Marines, and now this!

What's so wrong with that? I do not see a problem here, except maybe with people that are so set in their ways that they cannot accept change of any kind.

whats the practical reason for making these changes? wouldn't it be costly to change all these hats?

does a different hat somehow increase job performance?

I'm not sure of the Navy, but in the Army, after your first compliment of uniforms issued in basic, any wear and tear on a uniform item had to be replaced at the expense of the soldier. That is the reason for the monthly clothing allowance.

Ghost Rider wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/12/23/navy-updates-service-uniforms-for-female-sailors.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl



".....The female combination cover for E-7s and above also will be redesigned to resemble the male version....."

How can this be allowed to happen? First it was the 'Girly' covers that were almost forced on the Marines, and now this!

What's so wrong with that? I do not see a problem here, except maybe with people that are so set in their ways that they cannot accept change of any kind.

whats the practical reason for making these changes? wouldn't it be costly to change all these hats?

does a different hat somehow increase job performance?

I'm not sure of the Navy, but in the Army, after your first compliment of uniforms issued in basic, any wear and tear on a uniform item had to be replaced at the expense of the soldier. That is the reason for the monthly clothing allowance.

so if they change it then all the hats they have will have to be replaced out of the soldiers pocket.

and I was referring to they have a ton of stock of those things all over the world.

I cant see a reason to be messing with it. no practical reason at all. seems like just something to be messing with for no reason.

Chrissy wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/12/23/navy-updates-service-uniforms-for-female-sailors.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl



".....The female combination cover for E-7s and above also will be redesigned to resemble the male version....."

How can this be allowed to happen? First it was the 'Girly' covers that were almost forced on the Marines, and now this!

What's so wrong with that? I do not see a problem here, except maybe with people that are so set in their ways that they cannot accept change of any kind.

whats the practical reason for making these changes? wouldn't it be costly to change all these hats?

does a different hat somehow increase job performance?

I'm not sure of the Navy, but in the Army, after your first compliment of uniforms issued in basic, any wear and tear on a uniform item had to be replaced at the expense of the soldier. That is the reason for the monthly clothing allowance.

so if they change it then all the hats they have will have to be replaced out of the soldiers pocket.

and I was referring to they have a ton of stock of those things all over the world.

I cant see a reason to be messing with it. no practical reason at all. seems like just something to be messing with for no reason.

Well things change and we must change with them. I was on active duty when the Army went to the beret for wear by both men and women. There was a grace period, but yes we had to purchase the beret from our mediocre clothing allowance.

Ghost Rider wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/12/23/navy-updates-service-uniforms-for-female-sailors.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl



".....The female combination cover for E-7s and above also will be redesigned to resemble the male version....."

How can this be allowed to happen? First it was the 'Girly' covers that were almost forced on the Marines, and now this!

What's so wrong with that? I do not see a problem here, except maybe with people that are so set in their ways that they cannot accept change of any kind.

whats the practical reason for making these changes? wouldn't it be costly to change all these hats?

does a different hat somehow increase job performance?

I'm not sure of the Navy, but in the Army, after your first compliment of uniforms issued in basic, any wear and tear on a uniform item had to be replaced at the expense of the soldier. That is the reason for the monthly clothing allowance.

so if they change it then all the hats they have will have to be replaced out of the soldiers pocket.

and I was referring to they have a ton of stock of those things all over the world.

I cant see a reason to be messing with it. no practical reason at all. seems like just something to be messing with for no reason.

Well things change and we must change with them. I was on active duty when the Army went to the beret for wear by both men and women. There was a grace period, but yes we had to purchase the beret from our mediocre clothing allowance.

when something is working, you don't change it just for the sake of changing it. thats stupid. sure, I believe in improving things, what does this improve to incur even a penny of additional cost right now with the shape this country is in? all I am asking is for a reason we re even spending employee hours thinking about making his change. just one logical reason. I think that's fair.

Chrissy wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/12/23/navy-updates-service-uniforms-for-female-sailors.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl



".....The female combination cover for E-7s and above also will be redesigned to resemble the male version....."

How can this be allowed to happen? First it was the 'Girly' covers that were almost forced on the Marines, and now this!

What's so wrong with that? I do not see a problem here, except maybe with people that are so set in their ways that they cannot accept change of any kind.

whats the practical reason for making these changes? wouldn't it be costly to change all these hats?

does a different hat somehow increase job performance?

I'm not sure of the Navy, but in the Army, after your first compliment of uniforms issued in basic, any wear and tear on a uniform item had to be replaced at the expense of the soldier. That is the reason for the monthly clothing allowance.

so if they change it then all the hats they have will have to be replaced out of the soldiers pocket.

and I was referring to they have a ton of stock of those things all over the world.

I cant see a reason to be messing with it. no practical reason at all. seems like just something to be messing with for no reason.

Well things change and we must change with them. I was on active duty when the Army went to the beret for wear by both men and women. There was a grace period, but yes we had to purchase the beret from our mediocre clothing allowance.

when something is working, you don't change it just for the sake of changing it. thats stupid. sure, I believe in improving things, what does this improve to incur even a penny of additional cost right now with the shape this country is in? all I am asking is for a reason we re even spending employee hours thinking about making his change. just one logical reason. I think that's fair.

I think that bun looks like crap. The next thing will be dreads.

Yella wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/12/23/navy-updates-service-uniforms-for-female-sailors.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl



".....The female combination cover for E-7s and above also will be redesigned to resemble the male version....."

How can this be allowed to happen? First it was the 'Girly' covers that were almost forced on the Marines, and now this!

What's so wrong with that? I do not see a problem here, except maybe with people that are so set in their ways that they cannot accept change of any kind.

whats the practical reason for making these changes? wouldn't it be costly to change all these hats?

does a different hat somehow increase job performance?

I'm not sure of the Navy, but in the Army, after your first compliment of uniforms issued in basic, any wear and tear on a uniform item had to be replaced at the expense of the soldier. That is the reason for the monthly clothing allowance.

so if they change it then all the hats they have will have to be replaced out of the soldiers pocket.

and I was referring to they have a ton of stock of those things all over the world.

I cant see a reason to be messing with it. no practical reason at all. seems like just something to be messing with for no reason.

Well things change and we must change with them. I was on active duty when the Army went to the beret for wear by both men and women. There was a grace period, but yes we had to purchase the beret from our mediocre clothing allowance.

when something is working, you don't change it just for the sake of changing it. thats stupid. sure, I believe in improving things, what does this improve to incur even a penny of additional cost right now with the shape this country is in? all I am asking is for a reason we re even spending employee hours thinking about making his change. just one logical reason. I think that's fair.

I think that bun looks like crap. The next thing will be dreads.

maybe they should have to have mens haircuts too? and tape down their titties. I just figured out why they are doing this because of what you said. its because of the muslims. muslims don't want the women looking attractive at all because they cant contain their urges. if a woman looks sexy its her fault they get raped. so the solution is to make the women as unattractive as possible. finally a reason.

Chrissy wrote:

Yella wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/12/23/navy-updates-service-uniforms-for-female-sailors.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl



".....The female combination cover for E-7s and above also will be redesigned to resemble the male version....."

How can this be allowed to happen? First it was the 'Girly' covers that were almost forced on the Marines, and now this!

What's so wrong with that? I do not see a problem here, except maybe with people that are so set in their ways that they cannot accept change of any kind.

whats the practical reason for making these changes? wouldn't it be costly to change all these hats?

does a different hat somehow increase job performance?

I'm not sure of the Navy, but in the Army, after your first compliment of uniforms issued in basic, any wear and tear on a uniform item had to be replaced at the expense of the soldier. That is the reason for the monthly clothing allowance.

so if they change it then all the hats they have will have to be replaced out of the soldiers pocket.

and I was referring to they have a ton of stock of those things all over the world.

I cant see a reason to be messing with it. no practical reason at all. seems like just something to be messing with for no reason.

Well things change and we must change with them. I was on active duty when the Army went to the beret for wear by both men and women. There was a grace period, but yes we had to purchase the beret from our mediocre clothing allowance.

when something is working, you don't change it just for the sake of changing it. thats stupid. sure, I believe in improving things, what does this improve to incur even a penny of additional cost right now with the shape this country is in? all I am asking is for a reason we re even spending employee hours thinking about making his change. just one logical reason. I think that's fair.

I think that bun looks like crap. The next thing will be dreads.

maybe they should have to have mens haircuts too? and tape down their titties. I just figured out why they are doing this because of what you said. its because of the muslims. muslims don't want the women looking attractive at all because they cant contain their urges. if a woman looks sexy its her fault they get raped. so the solution is to make the women as unattractive as possible. finally a reason.

Yep, I believe that Islam is such a male oriented religion that their women
are for only one thing and that is to have babies. I suspect family life is nonexistant. The men eat together, pray together, play together and have homosexual sex for excitement.