Okay. I've seen enough of this thread and cringed my way through it. Here's a few points from an old dinosaur (and not the navy one that you proposed
)
1. "Work-out dress" is a red herring. No one should wear that anywhere but working out without getting a well-deserved kick in the gonads. If you truly have folks wearing PT dress around the work space after PT then you have a leadership issue.
2. Why do some people have a fetish about insisting that "office dress" be worn in an office. Suits and ties are an anachronism going back over a century now. (I mean what use is a tie in any event?) "office dress" distinguishes the "elite" office staff from the hum drum worker class. I always thought it stupid that as a junior officer with an "office" down in the gun park my troops were in combats but I had to wear a form of service "office" dress which prevented me from going anywhere where I might get dirty - changing into coveralls or combats was frowned upon.
3. Same issue different place. It was frowned on to wear combats in public because it might make the public nervous about having soldiers amongst them. The public would feel more comfortable if I was wearing my bus-driver uniform. Honestly, if I were king then every parade would be in fighting order bearing arms and with serviceable equipment on parade. The public should know and understand that their money is going towards building a fighting force and not a bureaucracy in green and blue suits. Everyone - and I mean everyone - is a member of one service, the Canadian
Armed Forces and should represent that.
4. Back to combats in the office. Maybe the problem isn't the uniform but that some people are allowed to wear it like slobs. Last fall, I had my first trip to Ottawa in many years and was gob-smacked by the poor standard of dress and grooming. Let it be known that in my day I was the guy who was part of the hippie revolution who was constantly called out for needing a haircut. I'm not a buzz-cut aficionado. I'm the guy who thinks combats/CADPAT in the office is perfectly fine. So if I think the standard of dress is horrible then you know its descended far below where it ought to be. Just because a uniform is a combat uniform does not mean that there can't be a standard of how it is worn and should look.
5. Spent a few years in a highland unit. Liked the kilt. But I think that it too is becoming an anachronism. Why do we still insist that we acknowledge a particular cultural group in our uniforms to the extent that we do? Would we be prepared to create a Sikh regiment in Brampton? I'm all in favour of regimental identities but am coming to the point where I think that they should be more muted and more in the nature of a patch on the sleeve and a hat badge. From a distance there should be a level of uniformity even if up close you can tell a particular regimental affiliation.
6. I don't like different uniforms for females. One can have a perfectly standardized uniform for everyone based on pants with the cut being appropriate for either a male or female form. Why have them wear a different hat? Or have a dress option? It detracts from uniformity and singles them out as different. Uniform means uniform.
Okay. Enough ranting for the moment although I've got a bit more saved up.