Maxman1
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,488
- Points
- 1,160
On a side note, apparently the "pants blousing optional" rule only applies to the field, it is still required in garrison.
On a side note, apparently the "pants blousing optional" rule only applies to the field, it is still required in garrison.
Depends, it's not required anywhere I have been since the new regs came out.On a side note, apparently the "pants blousing optional" rule only applies to the field, it is still required in garrison.
On a side note, apparently the "pants blousing optional" rule only applies to the field, it is still required in garrison.
I find it to be a serious lack of proper dress code. I understand the whole "We're accepting colored hairs, beards and guys wearing dresses now to be inclusive", but FFS keep it sharp as for dressing up properly.Depends, it's not required anywhere I have been since the new regs came out.
B-but…Not true at all. Dress regs allow you to “low blouse” around the ankles. As per the design in the pants. Frankly it looks better and it’s more functional anyways.
The better question is why was blousing required in garrison? The idea was not to have stuff go up your legs - that’s unlikely to happen in an office setting.I find it to be a serious lack of proper dress code. I understand the whole "We're accepting colored hairs, beards and guys wearing dresses now to be inclusive", but FFS keep it sharp as for dressing up properly.
But that's my old school mentality speaking.
If only the pant had some kind of a way to secure it around the bottom… like a Velcro strap or something.The better question is why was blousing required in garrison? The idea was not to have stuff go up your legs - that’s unlikely to happen in an office setting.
These rules should be based on practical reasons, not “we’ve done it since 1930s after we stopped wearing puttees”.
Not true at all. Dress regs allow you to “low blouse” around the ankles. As per the design in the pants. Frankly it looks better and it’s more functional anyways.
Depends, it's not required anywhere I have been since the new regs came out.
Edit: I'm also pretty sure she was my cadet RSM many years ago...
I agree; there's nothing to worry about when in garrison, but I find it to be more professional looking when there's not several standards like nowadays an everyone looking all different.The better question is why was blousing required in garrison? The idea was not to have stuff go up your legs - that’s unlikely to happen in an office setting.
These rules should be based on practical reasons, not “we’ve done it since 1930s after we stopped wearing puttees”.
I edited above. CA dress instruction is what your referring to.Apparently a separate Army dress regs was released around the same time as the new CAF-wide regs, which allows a low blouse in the field, but not garrison, and it was misinterpreted as allowing a low blouse anywhere. Don't know about Navy and Air Force.
I've also heard rumours the new dress regs may be rolled back to what they were originally, but with some allowance for self expression. So blue hair, mullets and hobo beards will be banned again.
Dress regs might tighten up a bit, but they won't go back to what they were. There is no reason for the CAF to be locked into 1950s fashion trends.Apparently a separate Army dress regs was released around the same time as the new CAF-wide regs, which allows a low blouse in the field, but not garrison, and it was misinterpreted as allowing a low blouse anywhere. Don't know about Navy and Air Force.
I've also heard rumours the new dress regs may be rolled back to what they were originally, but with some allowance for self expression. So blue hair, mullets and hobo beards will be banned again.
Navy NCDs don’t blouse and the RCAF doesn’t need to blouse at all now in CADPAT. I’m assuming that any RCN folks wearing CADPAT would be allowed to not blouse as well.Apparently a separate Army dress regs was released around the same time as the new CAF-wide regs, which allows a low blouse in the field, but not garrison, and it was misinterpreted as allowing a low blouse anywhere. Don't know about Navy and Air Force.
I've also heard rumours the new dress regs may be rolled back to what they were originally, but with some allowance for self expression. So blue hair, mullets and hobo beards will be banned again.
If it's a trial version, why are people wearing it in public?
Navy never bloused their pants. I’d think the Air Force would mutiny if they were forced to blouse their flight suits.Don't know about Navy and Air Force.
If it's a trial version, why are people wearing it in public?
That's probably why a separate Army-specific dress manual was released.Navy NCDs don’t blouse and the RCAF doesn’t need to blouse at all now in CADPAT. I’m assuming that any RCN folks wearing CADPAT would be allowed to not blouse as well.
Which is a pain. I wish the full dress manual had a chapter on environmental dress where each element put their relevant info. Would make it much easier especially for supervisors that have people from different elements under their command.That's probably why a separate Army-specific dress manual was released.
Are we really going to debate gaiters and paratrooper wannabe`s?
The idea was not to have stuff go up your legs - that’s unlikely to happen in an office setting.