Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Talking Tuesday

On the 25th of November, the Air Force released a new policy stating potential recruits could not have a tattoo on their right (saluting) arm. On Monday, this decision was reversed. Read the entire article HERE.

Tattoos and the military are known to go 'hand in hand'. Not all soldiers have tattoos, however many do. Should any branch of the military deny entry to one who desires to serve, because of a tattoo? Should tattoos be able to be covered by the uniform? What about face and neck tattoos? What is considered to be obscene or advocate sexual, racial, ethnic or religious discrimination?

Your turn............

6 comments:

CI-Roller Dude said...

I guess I wouldn't be able to join...or I wouldn't be able to salute...
my tat has a very special reason though... I think I'll keep it.

Rob-bear said...

I think this is a bit over the top, given what's generally acceptable in today's society, and a somewhat traditional piece of military history.

I wonder if one of the joint chiefs had been having a joint.

MightyMom said...

how odd. I would think as long as it's covered by the uni no one would care.....

AFWingMom said...

Well I may be stepping out here but you did ask for our thoughts.

I personally believe that the military can define what they believe is acceptable or appropriate and be able to deny entry to those that do not meet the criteria.

I don't care for tattoos for myself. I have plenty of friends, customers and some family members that do have tattoos and I'm fine with it. I just choose not to have one myself.

And in response to Rob-bear (not meant to flame - just giving food for thought) I would challenge your statement about "what's generally acceptable in today's society". There are lots of things that are generally acceptable in today's society such as longer hair and piercings that would not be acceptable in the military.

I understand that some get a tattoo to signify events (including military milestones) or honor people etc. and again, I think it's fine and I also think the military is trying to enforce some parameters because without any people would push the envelope.

To me it's just like my son having to keep his hair a certain length. It is limiting his personal freedom of expression? Perhaps but that is the guideline that the military has set forth and that is what my son agreed to abide by when he joined.

Just thinking outloud....thanks Airman Mom for bringing up an interesting topic. :) I look forward to reading further responses.

Rob-bear said...

Fair comment AFWingMom. No offense taken.

I was, for a time, seconded to the military as a Padre (term position). Stayed long enough that the Chaplain General practically broke my arm, twisting it to try to get me to join Reg. Forces. But by then, I had experienced enough to know that I would not have made a good soldier — I just wouldn't fit in. (I'm also the second of three generations in our family who has been "in uniform" in Canadian Forces.)

I have the highest respect and admiration for the professionalism and dedication of our soldiers, sailors and air crew. It's just that, as a Bear, my brain works differently. As per my previous comment.

Fair enough?

AFWingMom said...

Here's something my husband brought up...do you
think the military would loosen its restrictions on
what is acceptable in order to encourage more
to join? For example, if the numbers joining were
too low would the tattoos become a non-issue
for the sake of opening up the opportunity to
serve? Something to think about.