The Military Image
The military has looked better, but that has nothing to do with aesthetics.
A recent memo from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth mandated a review of military health and appearance standards, raising serious concerns about fairness and inclusivity within our armed forces. It’s total nonsense.
One major point he addresses is the issue of grooming standards, particularly regarding beards. Many service members, especially Black men, face a medical condition known as pseudofolliculitis barbae, which leads to painful irritation from shaving. This condition impacts a significant percentage of Black men (about 60%). By enforcing strict grooming policies that fail to account for this issue, the military risks perpetuating systemic bias, discriminating against those who must abstain from daily shaves for their health.
Furthermore, as Secretary Hegseth emphasizes the importance of physical fitness, we must acknowledge that many people struggle with these standards. Listen, I have been at the beach with my male pilot friends and thought to myself, “This doesn’t look anything like the volleyball scene from Top Gun.” And while I personally have never not maxed out the push-ups, sit-ups, or plank on a physical fitness tests, I've witnessed many sailors struggling to meet those basic fitness requirements. But also, who cares? Yes, we certainly want the most able-bodied folks when it comes to infantry roles or anything else that requires mobility and agility. But there are Public Affairs Officers, Judge Advocate Generals, meteorologists, and air traffic controllers serving in the military too. How many push-ups do their jobs require?
Frankly, physical appearance should not take precedence over their ability to perform their duties effectively. Not to mention that heightened standards could very well exacerbate our current recruitment challenges (in fact, standards were initially in order to ensure more people could join. We loosened the rules on tattoos for the same reasons. Because, as it turns out, the tattoos you have don’t keep you from doing the job). Now, as pressures mount to tighten these standards again, what will that mean for our ability to fill vital positions? But either way, are we really promoting a more effective fighting force by placing an undue emphasis on aesthetics over capability?
The military is not a one-size-fits-all mold, and the expectation that all service members should embody a hyper-masculine, physically imposing archetype is not only unrealistic but also harmful. The emphasis on strict fitness and appearance standards can translate into toxic machismo, discouraging qualified individuals from serving.
Ultimately, these changes seem to be more about fat-shaming and exclusion rather than enhancing military effectiveness. And while we absolutely should focus on the health and well-being of our service members, there’s a way to do this without perpetuating stereotypes or otherwise filtering out diverse and competent candidates.
At the end of the day, the question is: are we truly committed to building the most effective military, or are we clinging to outdated notions of what that looks like? The “image” of the military is largely trivial. Historically, beards were out of regulations because they could interfere with the tightness of helmets or gas masks. Many hair regulations came from similar rationales—plus, lice. But now? We have the technology. Certain very specific jobs may require very specific physical traits, but there are plenty of military jobs that will likely never require a helmet. So why is this a hot button issue? If we really wanted to improve the military’s external reputation, we should probably focus on eliminating sexual assault, stop sending troops to take immigrants to Guantanamo Bay, allow all eligible Americans (and that means trans Americans too) to serve, and get our peacetime accidents and fatalities to 0.
Health is important. And I’m going to go out on a limb here and say diversity and inclusion is too. But you can value health without creating rigid and often discriminatory standards. And functionality should certainly be a greater concern than achieving the superficial—and probably white-washed—vision of the military that exists in Secretary Hegseth’s imagination.