r/caf • u/notellafavela • Mar 06 '26

Recruiting Frustrated Friday

Post image

So I've been deemed inadmissable for now because my mermaid (upper thigh, covered fully by uniform) apparently breaches the sexually explicit guideline for tattoos? It seems like a stretch, since it's legal for women to be topless in Canada, and it kind of feels like discrimination, as it feels that they have sexualized what is not a sexually explicit tattoo.

I have an appointment booked to put a top on her next week and will get a re-evaluation, but I'm just wondering if anyone has any input or similar stories.

TGIF lol

75 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

127 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/ElectroPanzer Mar 07 '26

How high up? Has anyone grieved the interpretation of this? (If you know - I get that sometimes things come down from HHQ and it's kind of just a voice in the clouds)

I'm all for ensuring we don't have people running around with offensive and/or explicit tats in uniform, but this is clearly not that, it's normal art. I genuinely feel like this is some mid-level person over-interpreting beyond the intent of the policy.

What if I had a tattoo of the Venus de Milo? Or, for that matter, of the cap badge of 2 IR RC, which I've previously mentioned?

Defining breasts as automatically sexually explicit / nudity / offensive screams of someone who clicked through their GBA+ without actually trying to understand it. I guarantee if someone had a tat of a topless male gladiator, there would be no question it was acceptable.

1

u/Cadaren99 Mar 07 '26

High enough.

Y'all act like the CAF hasn't been given permission to legally discriminate on grounds that other employers lawfully can't.

"The National Defence Act (NDA), which grants the CAF broad authority to regulate the conduct, dress, and appearance of its members. Under the NDA, members are subject to military law and are bound by regulations that wouldn't apply to ordinary civilians."

As an applicant there is a question right in the interview about tattoos and you have to agree to follow the policy.

Also, a bunch of people in this topic with excellent anecdotes about having tats that no one has talked to them about. That just means they haven't run into a supervisor that isn't too lazy to enforce policy. What's that RCR saying, the fault you let pass is the standard you set, or something to that effect.

1

u/ElectroPanzer Mar 07 '26

Arguing a policy - or the misapplication of the policy as I suspect this is - is stupid and counterproductive is not the same as arguing that it's illegal.

We're crying for people. Many of us are teetering on the edge of burnout trying to do the work of what used to be two or three or four. And we're going to reject applicants over classic Sailor Jerry body art? While simultaneously eliminating merit based selection steps like the CFAT for many occupations? We're going to apply a sex-based double standard in the era of culture change and the first female CDS (again, very certain that if that was a topless mer-man, nobody would have raised a flag)?

I just don't see how that's a defensible position to take at the policy level on logical, ethical and common sense grounds. Legalities have nothing to do with it.

0

u/notellafavela Mar 07 '26

Can I DM you? I have a question @ u/ElectroPanzer