The latest edict from beard-obsessed Secretary of War Pete Hegseth adds strict new regulations to his crusade on facial hair, which rights groups have characterized as an attack on troops’ civil liberties.
In a March 11 memo, Hegseth, who has made grooming and appearances a central focus in his time at the helm of the U.S. military, raised the bar to qualify for a religious exemption to his blanket ban on beards. The guidelines lay out a strict new process by which service members may apply for a religious exemption and subject those who’ve already received one to a reevaluation, arguing they need to ensure their religious beliefs are “sincerely held” and have a genuine conflict with the grooming standards.
Service members who have spoken against Hegseth’s focus on grooming standards say his restrictions on beards are exclusionary to people from religious communities that require adherents to follow specific tenets of faith around beards, hair, and other grooming matters.
Sikhs, for example, who have served in the U.S. military since at least World War I, are required by their faith not to cut the hair on their head, to keep a beard, and to wrap their long hair in a turban. Members of many schools of Muslim tradition likewise have rules around beards and hair length.
Hegseth only shaves so he can splash his face with aftershave to cover up the permanent smell of alcohol emanating from his pores.
Imagine if they did this for COVID vaccine exemptions
I just keep thinking back to all the bullshit after 9/11, these assholes are just Al Queda with white skin and a different book to lie about
What. A. Loser. Just because he is a babyface bitch who can’t grow a beard doesn’t mean he needs to take it out on others who can.
They love their grooming.
The old testament also says “Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard”, but he’s got a pretty good haircut. It also says no clothes of mixed materials (so that poly-wool suit and poly-cotton shirt he’s wearing are no-gos). And it says no tattoos too, but he pretty famously has quite a lot of tattoos. Sounds like his own faith isn’t sincerely held.
Yes, but you see Leviticus is from the old covenant and none of that applies anymore, because the blood of Christ washed away the original sin so now humanity no longer has to follow those rituals.
Except the part about gay people being bad. That part still applies even though nothing else does. Because… Reasons. Yeah. That makes sense, right?
Indeed, this is the exact “logic” these people use. Their book has the character of Jesus saying that “not one jot or tittle” bit, but they claim they have a “new covenant” and get to ignore the inconvenient things about clothes, food, and hygiene, but keep the no homo stuff.
Frankly if Christians are following anything in the OT, they aren’t real Christians anyway.
LOL, define a real Christian. There are probably over 100,000 denominations of Christianity alone. What one is the right one?
I am of a sect that only follows the Old Testament, we are called The Only Real Christians.
You mean Jews?
Interesting, this wouldn’t happen to be a Scottish sect would it?
Isle of Man, ironically
Not according to jesus. “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
Sincerity isn’t one of his strong suits
he pretty famously has quite a lot of tattoos.
The Department of War’s grooming standards tribunal has determined his tattoos are violations and must be brought to standards immediately. The flaying will commence in 3…2…
The better way to manage religiously mandated hair: Have an appropriate cleric give an exemption in the eyes of [insert], but only if the soldier is being deployed to a theater that has genuine NBC threat that requires properly sealed gear. I think most people can agree that to be a reasonable compromise.
Unfortunately, we got Kegsbreath, Prima Donna of Defense.
hesgeth has a whole suite in the DOD dedicated to his glamour makeup routine.
The drunk pedo protector is a complete sack of shit. However, to properly wear a protective mask, in a chemical warfare environment, you need to shave or the damn thing will not seal.
This made me think of a question/issue potentially. For those with fast growing facial hair how would that effect them? Like what if they shaved and had the mask on. Would the hair be able to grow and break the seal potentially? Or how long would it take between shaves for it to become unsafe? 5 hours? 10?
A little stubble, I think that a dab of Vasoline could handle.
This is the same reason firemen don’t have beards (but a lot will have mustaches).
What are the odds he just can’t grow a beard and is weirdly insecure about it?
Nah, he’s just a fucking racist targeting black people (which it’s odd this article doesn’t mention, right alongside with Sikhs).
Most shaving waivers are for soldiers diagnosed with pseudofolliculitis barbae, or PFB, a condition in which hairs curl back into the skin after shaving and cause irritation. The Pentagon may cover the laser treatment, but that can cost thousands of dollars per soldier, depending on the number of sessions required. It’s unclear how many soldiers would require the procedure.
The American Osteopathic College of Dermatology estimates that up to 60% of Black men are affected by the condition. Laser treatments can cause scarring and changes in skin pigmentation.
“Of course, this is racially motivated,” one senior noncommissioned officer familiar with the plans told Military.com on the condition of anonymity to avoid retaliation. “There’s no tactical reason; you can look professional with facial hair.”
Huh, apparently he used to have one when he was on Fox News but they made him shave it: https://www.foxnews.com/video/5829694071001
And yeah you can see it’s kind of patchy, in the image in OP’s article too. But I don’t think it’s insecurity because he was on live national TV like that. (I also found pictures of him with stubble and he actually looks good like that. But no, the culture war takes priority.)
Must be a leftover policy from Fox Entertainment stuck in his head.
After all, Trump’s entire cabinet is just Fox Entertainment on a global scale, figuratively and literally.
Can confirm, he’s just jealous he can’t grow a manly beard.
Man it took me way too long to realize the goatee fad in the 00s was because most tweens couldn’t grow a full beard.
I thought the Joe Dirt:
You’re just so white trash it grows in like that?
Was a complete joke, and didn’t have one foot in reality.
The more this pissant and others of his ilk rage against beards the more I’m tempted to grow a big auld John Brown beard. I have the capacity to and simply choose not to because it gets right fucken itchy.
Beard oil. It exists, it is amazing, and it stopped my itching. I comb a little into my beard every one or two days, takes like 5 minutes if I go slow.
Beard oil and beard balm are why I don’t look like a crazed mountain hermit. They’re really phenomenal stuff!
for many types of beard itch, beard oil can also be a long term negative. if the itch is caused by fungal infection (same as dandruff and lots of skin issues), that infection feeds on the oils
in that case, you need daily anti dandruff shampoo, and not all are created equal: different types may work better or worse for different people
And it’s not always treatable with shampoo. At some point, dandruff is dermatitis, and at some point after that, dermatitis may be psoriasis. If OTC topicals don’t cut it, check in with a dermatologist. That’s how I learned I also had psoriatic arthritis, as it was resolved with prescribed medication
Thanks for the advise. I may let it grow out more than an inch and this will help.
Tell us about this bear oil.
I grew up in a fundamentalist environment and heard tons of crap about how beards were bad or whatever. Never made sense to me, Jesus had one. Soon as I left high school I grew a beard (dirty-ass chin-strap because it was the year 2000 lol). I’ve sported a full beard pretty much ever since. It gives me a jawline, plus I enjoy the feeling of spite.
I grew up in a fundamentalist environment and heard tons of crap about how beards were bad or whatever. Never made sense to me, Jesus had one.
That, and isn’t there a lot of stuff in “the” bible about not cutting your hair and your beard?
Yes. At least the beards and hair by the temples.
I’ve had a beard for years now. The itchiness goes away after the first few weeks.
Anti dandruff shampoo also helps.
The only time mine itched against my neck was a fresh cut to under 1/2". It was the right combo of fresh-cut squared hair ends and short length allowing a stiff stab to the neck. The hair ends taper to a flexible point after a couple weeks. It’s been significantly longer for years. Now I just get some surprise tickles in my ears on polo shirt days
For me it’s not the hairs making things itchy, it’s the hair follicle itself that gets itchy past a certain length.
After everything my wife has told me about the Sikhs she serves with, I’ll honestly be happy if the US kicks them all out; if it comes down to a war between Canada and the US, the last thing I want is for our troops to be going up against some of the most relentlessly committed, brave and selfless soldiers you could ever hope to meet. The US military will be weaker without them, and at this point that’s a good thing.
You had me going there in the first half. Glad you brought it back around in the end.
Either everybody should be able to have beards, or nobody. Believing in a fairytale should not be tied to special privileges.
That’s an easy and convenient stance to take when you nonchalantly disregard other’s religious beliefs as a “fairytale.” Those “special privileges” aren’t a “privilege,” but a duty to one’s faith.
I’m not religious, closer to modern atheists than anything else. Even I can understand and respect the nuance to the situation.
The right answer, in my opinion, would be to ban them from any form of service which would require conflicting grooming standards. That’s how you address the safety issue, not by implying “fuck your religion.”
Edit: if you so please, you can even make it illegal to (officially) change your religion during a single contract term. That way the issues are resolved then and there, before they’re assigned any duty.
Those “special privileges” aren’t a “privilege,” but a duty to one’s faith.
If I were to say I had a “duty” to my own atheist sense of beard honor or whatever, that’d fly out the window. Religion is a preference, a choice. The duty is only to the persons own sense of pride and morality.
We have similar problems with nurses of certain religions in my country, refusing to do their job (for instance related to abortion) and endangering patients citing religion.
Thankfully the regulations have been upheld and these people have been told “If you refuse to do your job, you’re fired.” in these cases, but there is a religious lobby rapidly growing in influence in my country, and have already secured exceptions from stuff like hygiene rules in healthcare.
A “beard exception” matters little in truth, but allow one such exception and suddenly they’re everywhere (I’d argue let people have their beards ffs!). However, this kind of pandering is insane, dangerous and my patience for it is very limited. Religion is their choice, but that is no excuse to impose their will on the rest of society.
If I were to say I had a “duty” to my own atheist sense of beard honor or whatever, that’d fly out the window.
Yeah, obviously. That would fly out the window because you aren’t even coming to the table in good faith. Is your best argument seriously “if I had a duty to my atheistic nonbelief in higher order?” I’m sorry, friend, but I don’t sympathize with that. If you had a religious faith that was held in good faith, it ought be respected even by people with opposing views — no “flying out the window” as your argument suggests. We’re literally debating the premise that these should be respected, to include yours.
We have similar problems with nurses of certain religions in my country, refusing to do their job (for instance related to abortion) and endangering patients citing religion.
I go back to my first point that there are better ways to solve the problem. If religion can discriminate against healthcare, it should be healthcare who discriminates against religion instead… I agree with you there, but in a different way. Don’t hire people who will refuse to do the job. Ask them if they can meet the job duties, just like is already common with “can you stand for more than an hour at a time” and “can you lift 20lbs.” Here, we should be asking questions like, “do any religious beliefs prevent you from fulfilling these job functions…”
It really should be as simple as can you do the job or not. If not, they shouldn’t have the job. Wouldn’t you agree with that? It’s not like we’re saying they’re banned from the profession of their choice. They can’t do what they refuse to do, so we aren’t shutting any doors that weren’t shut anyway. Religious folk can still have positions that don’t put their religion at odds with others.
Yeah, obviously.
What’s so obvious about it? The initial example here is facetious and absurd, but what’s to say that I don’t take my “beard honour” just as seriously as someone else does their religion?
Because I’ve certainly met people who take their religion very lightly, yet absolutely will use it as an excuse for special treatment at every opportunity.
A less absurd example might be somebody with the delusion (a.k.a strongly held personal belief) that their value as a man depends entirely on their beard, that they might as well kill themselves if they were unable to have one. Or someone with a facial scar tied to incredible emotional trauma that they use their beard to cover up.
The simple fact is that special treatment of religious adherents is discriminatory, not against them, but against everyone else. The root of the problem is that laws that were intended to prevent special maltreatment of religious adherents have instead become leveraged as a basis to grant privileges. When they don’t get the job after refusing to follow hygiene protocol, shake hands with certain demographic groups or perform job duties, they sue their employer for discrimination. They demand the job, and demand that the job description be changed to fit their personal preferences.
I agree, it should be as simple as “can you do the job or not”. If being clean shaven is part of the job description (which I certainly could find good reasons for, such as gas masks or hygiene) and you refuse to be clean shaven, then you’re out.
Because I’ve certainly met people who take their religion very lightly, yet absolutely will use it as an excuse for special treatment at every opportunity.
It’s anecdotal. It really shouldn’t matter, though. If the terms were agreed to when the contract was signed, you adhere to those terms or get kicked out. We don’t disagree about this.
When they don’t get the job after refusing to follow hygiene protocol, shake hands with certain demographic groups or perform job duties, they sue their employer for discrimination. They demand the job…
There’s your problem. It shouldn’t matter. If someone makes a listing that requires “abortions” as part of the job description, they should damn well be able to deny anyone unfit for the role — to include anyone whose reason is religious. It’s as simple as it’s ever been. Can’t do the job, don’t get the job.
… and demand that the job description be changed to fit their personal preferences.
That’s odd, because one could just say “I can’t change the job description without changing the role I am hiring, and I only need that role.” Or rather, “we are hiring a general surgeon for a role that can assist in the abortion workload. If we change the description, we no longer need the role.” That’s the fight we ought be fighting.
Your argument comes across to me like you’re saying that you’d prefer to force people to not adhere to their religion, which comes across as very disrespectful in my opinion. Reinforcing my perspective, I’ve read you liken religion to a “choice” as though that fact has any bearing whatsoever on making it an insignificant factor. It does not.
A less absurd example might be somebody with the delusion (a.k.a strongly held personal belief) that their value as a man depends entirely on their beard, that they might as well kill themselves if they were unable to have one.
I would agree, if we’re talking about “delusions” in good faith here. For some reason, however, I think you’re referring to Muslim practice as delusional. So to be clear, yeah, a faith to the Muslim god which forbids shaving is respectable and not delusional. A random personal delusion, sure, we’re on the same page about that. “Delusion” and “faith” aren’t the same thing. To insist otherwise is just arrogant, shallow, and yes “delusional” in its own right.
For a nation that is all about personal freedom, they sure spend a lot of time telling other people what to do in areas that don’t really matter. Even for the sake of military uniformity, facial hair must be maintained and groomed seems like an acceptable stance. Anything else is just power tripping.
Here in America, we are absolutely free to live our lives exactly the way conservatives want us to. Unless of course you’re not white, in which case your right to exist is always a little up in the air.
Continuing the Republican tradition of focusing on all the most pressing problems first.
Hegseth likes his RAARGH WARFIGHTERS ERS Ers ers faces to be smooth as a baby’s bottom. That’s right. Just like everyone in Trump’s inner circle, baby bottoms appeal to him.
He wants them all to look like strong little boys so he can feel like Epstein. Surrounded by kids who have no choice but to do what he says
I wonder how “JD” “Vance” feels about all this beard hate.
Anyway, glad that Kegsbreath is focusing on the important things: attacking the Scouts for having girls as members, awkward videos of him improperly exercising, and…beards.
His beard is all drawn in with a mascara pencil I’ll bet. /s
