Why is the U.S so uptight about hair?
Posted by Hipster on April 12, 2002 at 18:05:08: Previous Next
After reading numerous posts on this board today from Jeremy's situation in HS to the other posts made by people from other countries, I've come to conclude that America isn't quite as tolerant as many would think.
most of the respondants from Israel to Europe have stated that there isn't any discrimination in school or the work place regarding Men with long hair and have indicated that even many white color professionals have long hair in these countries.
this is the 21st century and we're telling boys in school to get short haircuts and the same is prevalent in many workplaces.
Why is America still in the dark ages with the issue of Men wearing long hair?
Didn't the longhairs of the 1960s fight for the right to wear their hair long?
what happened?
Re: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair?
Posted by CaTiger on April 12, 2002 at 20:19:28:
In Reply to: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair? posted by Hipster on April 12, 2002 at 18:05:08:
Sometimes you just want to grab them by the throat and yell "What the fuck do you care?!" Why the fuck should anyone care how another person wars their hair? Like Jeremy earlier on in the board, I'm just venting.
Re: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair?
Posted by BMC on April 12, 2002 at 20:59:19: Previous Next
In Reply to: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair? posted by Hipster on April 12, 2002 at 18:05:08:
: After reading numerous posts on this board today from Jeremy's situation in HS to the other posts made by people from other countries, I've come to conclude that America isn't quite as tolerant as many would think.
: Why is America still in the dark ages with the issue of Men wearing long hair?
That's a good question, Hipster. America is definitely not as tolerant as we think we are, about hair or a lot of other things. A lot of the negative stereotypes about hippies are still around today, unfortunately. America is a country of "majority rules" and if you do something outside of the mainstream, people do not like it very much. From school to the workplace, teachers, bosses, and even peers seem to concern themselves an awful lot with how you look- if you don't look just like everybody else. Certain parts of the country are a lot worse than others though- seems like the South and Midwest seem to be the worst.
Re: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair?
Posted by A. Michelson on April 12, 2002 at 21:03:38: Previous Next
In Reply to: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair? posted by Hipster on April 12, 2002 at 18:05:08:
: After reading numerous posts on this board today from Jeremy's situation in HS to the other posts made by people from other countries, I've come to conclude that America isn't quite as tolerant as many would think.
: most of the respondants from Israel to Europe have stated that there isn't any discrimination in school or the work place regarding Men with long hair and have indicated that even many white color professionals have long hair in these countries.
: this is the 21st century and we're telling boys in school to get short haircuts and the same is prevalent in many workplaces.
: Why is America still in the dark ages with the issue of Men wearing long hair?
: Didn't the longhairs of the 1960s fight for the right to wear their hair long?
: what happened?
Re: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair?
Posted by Zorba on April 12, 2002 at 23:17:44: Previous Next
In Reply to: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair? posted by Hipster on April 12, 2002 at 18:05:08:
: Didn't the longhairs of the 1960s fight for the right to wear their hair long?
: what happened?
A favorite subject of mine - And it's not just about hair, it's about anything/everything appearance related, especially with males.
There isn't just "one thing", it's many.
A partial list:
1) The inherant Puritanism of American society - which had it's echos in the 1890s "Victorian" era, as well as the 1950's - and we're probably fast sliding into it again.
2) The incredable "fuddy-duddyness" of people from about 30 to about 50 years old. I'm 41, and the fuddy-duddy factor of people my age, +- 10 years or so has always amazed me. It seems only the "old hippies", and older (including many, but certainly not all of the 65+ crowd), and the very young (Under 30) have any sense of adventure, daring, or whatever you want to call it. As a result, I have had few friends my age - whatever that age happened to be, for my entire life! I've always had more in common with those older, or younger than I.
3) The women fought for equality in the 60's and 70's on many fronts. We men have yet to fight for our equality, - as oft observed here and elsewhere, equality is a one way street. We men must make our own equality. And, unlike the ladies, this, for the most part, is NOT a "war of the sexes", in fact the 'enemy' is the exact same one the women fought in the 60's, it is US! Yes, US MEN! Yea, there are plenty of women who don't like long hair on men, but for every such woman, there are AT LEAST TEN MEN! This issue spreads to many fronts, from males dancing, to long hair, to earrings, to wearing kilts, etc., which leads me to....
4) "Machismo". Misplaced masculinity. Or masculinity totally out of control. Need I say more?
There's are doubtless other factors as well, these are the major ones as I see them...
-Zorba
So what have we got to lose ?
Posted by petronius on April 14, 2002 at 09:52:30: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair? posted by Zorba on April 12, 2002 at 23:17:44:
I think it's rapidly becoming a favourite topic of mine too :-)
: "We men have yet to fight for our equality, - as oft observed here and elsewhere, equality is a one way street. We men must make our own equality."
Firstly. In common with many oppressed minority groups most western women who set out to fight for equality (Women’s Lib.) in the 60's and 70's only achieved legal success, subsequent recognition and final acceptance primarily because I believe they banded together internationally first. This was partly why I was curious to discover as much about the boys/ men's long hair pro/anti situations in as many other countries as possible, as I still don't think these prejudices are entirely limited just to the USA.
: And, unlike the ladies, this, for the most part, is NOT a "war of the sexes......Yea, there are plenty of women who don't like long hair on men...."
Secondly. From what I've read and understood on here many of these women would also seem to be the early-in-life, all-influential harder to ignore mother type too.
"It's ok for my daughter(s) to have long hair but not my son(s)."
Nonetheless I'm pretty sure there must be just as many mothers, girls and women out there who DO like long hair on boys/men, so in exactly the same way that women were obviously highly successful, above all in the legal spheres in making it a "war of the sexes", it does in the very same interests of Men's Lib. and equality raise the question....
“What the hell have we got to lose” ? :-)
correction
Posted by amp on April 15, 2002 at 10:47:20:
In Reply to: So what have we got to lose ? posted by petronius on April 14, 2002 at 09:52:30:
If you think women have "achieved success" you're mistaken. The laws that were passed were never really enforced. Get over yourself, we men do not face the hardships that women do, and we never will. We, white men, have the most privelidge in this country, and I say we're pretty fucking lucky all we're worried about is our long hair.
Wrong.
Posted by petronius on April 16, 2002 at 12:13:07:
In Reply to: correction posted by amp on April 15, 2002 at 10:47:20:
: If you think women have "achieved success" you're mistaken. The laws that were passed were never really enforced. Get over yourself, we men do not face the hardships that women do, and we never will. We, white men, have the most privelidge in this country, and I say we're pretty fucking lucky all we're worried about is our long hair.
I think it is you that is quite mistaken. There are three clearly defined major success areas here.
A). “….so in exactly the same way that women were obviously highly successful, above all in the legal spheres in making it a "war of the sexes"….”
First stage carefully planned public media campaigns that have clearly illustrated and highlighted any minority group’s problems after the event ARE in their own right successful (1) and positive achievements, also Women’s Lib. and emancipation beforehand I believe successfully (2) achieved many of their aims by making it all a “war of the sexes”. Men particularly, were forced to listen whether they liked it or not and second stage legal success (3) “was achieved” because precious laws that had never existed before such campaigns commenced were finally passed into effect. It was also a process that took many years of hard sustained effort before these successes were finally realised. On the other hand all subsequent perceived failures of commitment or enforcement to pursue and quickly capitalise on these early successful gains is something quite different, because hard as it is or might have been both the means and the opportunities have always clearly been there to be taken.
Put it another way. Just how much worse off today do you think the Gay Rights Movement as much as the women above would have been if they hadn’t fought tooth and nail or failed to gain all their public campaign successes to begin with ? Alternatively what chance would any woman have had of becoming the first and most successful president ever of Pepsi(?)-Cola ?
B). “….only achieved legal success, subsequent recognition and final acceptance primarily because I believe they banded together internationally first. “
If you still haven’t realised it yet there are precious little or no legal rights whatsoever for long hair on men/ boys out there at all, so we haven’t got even remotely NEAR to our own first stages yet ! By publicly criticising and discouraging, regardless of one’s colour, privileges or country any thoughts or discussions that are seeking to at least try to understand and improve ANY minority group’s problems and positions whether it’s men’s long hair or anything else, has got to be the most negative and unsuccessful attitude of all, as not only will things never ever get off the ground they will always be doomed to failure from the very beginning. Profanities included.
End of pointless discussion.
its time for action
Posted by amp on April 17, 2002 at 07:56:35: Previous Next
In Reply to: Wrong. posted by petronius on April 16, 2002 at 12:13:07:
I'm all for long haired men getting treated fairly. But calling us a minority? White, heterosexual men are not minorities in the political sense of the word. This comparing yourself to women and black people and Native Americans and homosexuals has got to go. We're talking about a fashion statement compared to race or gender issues.
According to your own definition of success, once we had media exposure illustrating our "hardships" you would be happy?
When you state "men were forced to listen whether they liked it or not," you point out how hostile you are to women which is why you don't want to acknowledge any concerns women have had since the '70s. I urge you to actually study the women's movement of yesterday and today before you pretend to know about it. (mentioning one CEO whose name you don't even know is supposed to prove anything?)
I do sincerely apologize for derailing this so much, lets focus on what we do agree on, I believe the best thing we can do is not give in and cut our hair. Let's make our hairstyle more mainstream. The generation after us might be influenced by our confidence to go against the grain. Just as many of us were influenced by The Beatles or other trailblazers of the '60s.
This is a large network, we could start a campaign from here. Petitions, letter writing, boycotts, we can start now. This site alone could make a difference if everyone here joined together and started speaking up to our representatives, corporations, and the media. The easiest thing we can do now is pick a few large corporations and everyone here write to them and tell them we want to be represented in their ads too. Lets make it happen. I really am serious about this.
Anybody else?
not trying to argue
Posted by amp on April 17, 2002 at 10:41:13: Previous Next
In Reply to: Wrong. posted by petronius on April 16, 2002 at 12:13:07:
Did you even read my post? Once again, laws getting passed don't mean anything if they're not enforced. Also, since you claim to know so much about Women's Liberation, how come you think it started in the 1960's? The first organizations and rallies and protests started in the 1870's. Back then they wanted the right to vote, own property, work, wear pants, not have forced abortions, not be legally beaten and raped by their husbands, and have the right to divorce their husbands if they were mistreated. These are just off the top of my head, there are more things they were fighting for. Buy yourself a women's history book.
correcting myself
Posted by amp on April 17, 2002 at 16:34:22: Previous Next
In Reply to: not trying to argue posted by amp on April 17, 2002 at 10:41:13:
I gave the wrong date. Women's Liberation actually dates back to 1848, or 112 years before the 1960's.
Re: correcting myself
Posted by petronius on April 18, 2002 at 06:16:46: Previous Next
In Reply to: correcting myself posted by amp on April 17, 2002 at 16:34:22:
: I gave the wrong date. Women's Liberation actually dates back to 1848, or 112 years before the 1960's.
I still don't know, much less do I care what you're on about. Whilst I sympathise fully with the principle of women's rights etc. and have ALWAYS done so (hostile ? sheesh :-( !!??) I know precious little if **ANYTHING** about it all whatsoever, more to the point I have never EVER claimed to ! In case you don't realise it I joined a men's long hair Board and NOT a women's rights one and it is only YOU who has ever said I know all about women's rights and no-one else. Read it all again, again and again and this time get a serious grip.
To repeat. I'm solely interested in successful AREAS or SYSTEMS (AREAS or SYSTEMS right ? – not women's rights) that could best help promote men's long hair everywhere because we are definitely despite what you really weirdly seem to think, a minority group and will continue to remain so until such time as men's long hair finally becomes mainstream. This in my opinion and as I’ve always stated, is the best available proven and successful SYSTEM currently going (1,2 and 3) and the systems option that I believe is the most likely to achieve our hoped-for mainstream goals until someone can come up with any better ones.
I therefore most respectfully (in view of everyone else on this Board) suggest because you feel so strongly about women’s rights that you leave here and go join a Women's Rights Forum someplace else as you are now completely off-topic. Please drop it once and for all because I am totally and utterly sick to death of it, I suspect many others are too, and why this will be my final post on the Hyperboard for I don't know how long.
Bye Patriarch! n/m
Posted by amp on April 18, 2002 at 07:10:58: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: correcting myself posted by petronius on April 18, 2002 at 06:16:46:
///
Re: correction
Posted by petronius on April 16, 2002 at 12:54:55:
In Reply to: correction posted by amp on April 15, 2002 at 10:47:20:
: If you think women have "achieved success" you're mistaken. The laws that were passed were never really enforced. Get over yourself, we men do not face the hardships that women do, and we never will. We, white men, have the most privelidge in this country, and I say we're pretty fucking lucky all we're worried about is our long hair.
I think it is you that is quite mistaken. There are three clearly defined major success areas here.
A). “….so in exactly the same way that women were obviously highly successful, above all in the legal spheres in making it a "war of the sexes"….”
First stage carefully planned public media campaigns that have clearly illustrated and highlighted any minority group’s problems after the event ARE in their own right successful (1) and positive achievements, also Women’s Lib. and emancipation beforehand I believe successfully (2) achieved many of their aims by making it all a “war of the sexes”. Men particularly, were forced to listen whether they liked it or not and second stage legal success (3) “was achieved” because precious laws that had never existed before such campaigns commenced were finally passed into effect. It was also a process that took many years of hard sustained effort before these same successes were finally realised. On the other hand all subsequent perceived failures of commitment or enforcement to pursue and quickly capitalise on these early successful gains is something quite different, because hard as it is or might have been both the means and the opportunities have always clearly been there to be taken.
Put it another way. Just how much worse off today do you think the Gay Rights Movement as much as the women above would have been if they hadn’t fought tooth and nail or failed to gain all their public campaign successes to begin with ? Alternatively what chance would any woman have had of becoming the first and most successful president ever of Pepsi(?)-Cola ?
B). “….only achieved legal success, subsequent recognition and final acceptance primarily because I believe they banded together internationally first. “
If you still haven’t realised it yet there are precious little or no legal rights whatsoever for long hair on men/ boys out there at all, so we haven’t got even remotely NEAR to our own first stages yet ! By publicly criticising and discouraging, regardless of one’s colour, privileges or country any thoughts or discussions that are seeking to at least try to understand and improve ANY minority group’s problems and positions whether it’s men’s long hair or anything else, has got to be the most negative and unsuccessful attitude of all, as not only will things never ever get off the ground they will always be doomed to failure from the very beginning. Profanities included.
End of pointless discussion.
FUDDY-DUDDY
Posted by A. MICHELSON on April 14, 2002 at 22:08:14: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair? posted by Zorba on April 12, 2002 at 23:17:44:
: The incredable "fuddy-duddyness" of people from about 30 to about 50 years old. I'm 41, and the fuddy-duddy factor of people my age, +- 10 years or so has always amazed me. It seems only the "old hippies", and older (including many, but certainly not all of the 65+ crowd), and the very young (Under 30) have any sense of adventure, daring, or whatever you want to call it. As a result, I have had few friends my age - whatever that age happened to be, for my entire life! I've always had more in common with those older, …
I know what you mean. I, along with Bill C., are these older people who do think critically. That's why we support rights for longhairs. I did realize the "fuddy-duddy" of the teen-age generation of the 1970's, which was when the high schools were so bad that truancy meant survival! They didn't teach Critical Thinking very well back then, so that generation tended to support any law that was passed. In fact, there was a Californian (born in 1962) who thought that repressive "prisoner grooming standards" were all right! Perhaps, this "fuddy-duddy" is due to rebellion against the [crazy] 1970's? Could this be the "Generation X" that I hear about?
Re: FUDDY-DUDDY
Posted by John L. on April 15, 2002 at 00:32:25: Previous Next
In Reply to: FUDDY-DUDDY posted by A. MICHELSON on April 14, 2002 at 22:08:14:
: I know what you mean. I, along with Bill C., are these older people who do think critically. That's why we support rights for longhairs. I did realize the "fuddy-duddy" of the teen-age generation of the 1970's, which was when the high schools were so bad that truancy meant survival! They didn't teach Critical Thinking very well back then, so that generation tended to support any law that was passed. In fact, there was a Californian (born in 1962) who thought that repressive "prisoner grooming standards" were all right! Perhaps, this "fuddy-duddy" is due to rebellion against the [crazy] 1970's? Could this be the "Generation X" that I hear about? With respect to GenX (20-35 years of age), a lot of the people I've seen are longhairs... But, there are some GenXers who are not like me and other people on this board. People who tend to take the "MY way or the highway" approach. Example: my sister. She believes that men should always have short hair. And NO man should be allowed to wear any unbifurcated garments, unless they're at the Highland Games, or are in Scotland and are wearing a traditional kilt... That belief was passed down to her by her mother. Hence the reason why I don't much want to have anything to do with the two of them. I need a longhair friendly woman as my companion, not someone like my family members.
-J
The "Over-30" Crowd!
Posted by A. Michelson on April 19, 2002 at 00:17:29: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair? posted by Zorba on April 12, 2002 at 23:17:44:
: : Didn't the longhairs of the 1960s fight for the right to wear their hair long?
: : what happened?
: A favorite subject of mine - And it's not just about hair, it's about anything/everything appearance related, especially with males.
: There isn't just "one thing", it's many.
: A partial list:
: 2) The incredable "fuddy-duddyness" of people from about 30 to about 50 years old. I'm 41, and the fuddy-duddy factor of people my age, +- 10 years or so has always amazed me. It seems only the "old hippies", and older (including many, but certainly not all of the 65+ crowd), and the very young (Under 30) have any sense of adventure, daring, or whatever you want to call it. As a result, I have had few friends my age - whatever that age happened to be, for my entire life! I've always had more in common with those older, or younger than I.
In the 1960's, it's "Never trust anyone over 30."
Nowadays, it's "Never trust anyone over 30, and under 50!"
Re: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair?
Posted by James on April 14, 2002 at 21:33:13: Previous Next
In Reply to: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair? posted by Hipster on April 12, 2002 at 18:05:08:
The Republican attitude, which claims to be conservative, but never can be found in favor of conservation, and which claim to want to government out of your business, but which in fact has Aunt Sam looking over your shoulder and snooping into your bed room, is contracry to every American tradition, and rather than supporting individualism as they claim wants to turn you in to a crew cut conformist.
James
Re: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair?
Posted by Jim from NM on April 15, 2002 at 15:38:44: Previous Next
In Reply to: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair? posted by Hipster on April 12, 2002 at 18:05:08:
I haven't found this to be true at all. I have lived in both the midwest (Minnesota) and the southwest (New Mexico) with long hair, and have never felt there to be discrimination towards me. I even have both ears pierced. Pretty much everything else in my life is pretty normal --- I am 30, I have a high paying professional job with a lot of responsibilities, a wife, two dogs and live in a middle-class neighborhood with a nice yard. The main reason I like to keep my hair long and the earrings is to stand out from the crowd.
By the way, here in Santa Fe, long hair on men is extremely common (close to half of all men) and even the pastor at our Bible-based nondenominational Christian church wears an earring and has longish hair. It is not a big deal. I personally think that many of the people that post on this site make it a bigger issue in their own mind than it really is. I remember that when I was first growing out my hair 6 years ago I thought it would be a big deal, but it wasn't. People commented, of course, but it didn't affect my life in a major way other than to make me look better (in my opinion). Nowadays, I suspect that the people who know me would be quite shocked if I cut my hair short.
Re: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair?
Posted by BMC on April 16, 2002 at 16:08:18: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair? posted by Jim from NM on April 15, 2002 at 15:38:44:
: I haven't found this to be true at all. I have lived in both the midwest (Minnesota) and the southwest (New Mexico) with long hair, and have never felt there to be discrimination towards me.
Jim-
That's very interesting. I have friends in MN, and almost every time I've been there, I've faced some kind of discrimination. The worst one being some guy in the airport calling me names and asking me to step outside, all because I had long hair. How long ago did you live there?
I'm not trying to argue, I just think it's interesting that two people can have such a totally different impression of a place.
NM sounds great though, I hope to make it down there someday.
Re: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair?
Posted by Jim from NM on April 16, 2002 at 16:56:54: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair? posted by BMC on April 16, 2002 at 16:08:18:
: Jim-
: That's very interesting. I have friends in MN, and almost every time I've been there, I've faced some kind of discrimination. The worst one being some guy in the airport calling me names and asking me to step outside, all because I had long hair. How long ago did you live there?
: I'm not trying to argue, I just think it's interesting that two people can have such a totally different impression of a place.
: NM sounds great though, I hope to make it down there someday.
I lived there for 6 years from 1994 - 2000. I lived in Minneapolis, fairly close to downtown. Of course, I went to the airport many times and never experienced discrimination. I also traveled to other parts of the state (Duluth, Fargo/Moorhead, the Arrowhead). Actually, I found Minnesota to be a wonderful place to live. Even with the winters.
Re: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair?
Posted by BMC on April 17, 2002 at 20:52:58: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair? posted by Jim from NM on April 16, 2002 at 16:56:54:
: I lived there for 6 years from 1994 - 2000. I lived in Minneapolis, fairly close to downtown. Of course, I went to the airport many times and never experienced discrimination. I also traveled to other parts of the state (Duluth, Fargo/Moorhead, the Arrowhead). Actually, I found Minnesota to be a wonderful place to live. Even with the winters.
I've had problems at places besides the airport, all in the Twin Cities area, but I'll definitely give it another chance.
Thanks for the reply.
Re: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair?
Posted by NorCal Scott on April 17, 2002 at 15:22:13: Previous Next
In Reply to: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair? posted by Hipster on April 12, 2002 at 18:05:08:
Basically, the United States is a conservative country. We have a high percentage religious, church-going folks. We believe in the death penalty, and sexual hanky-panky in high places (read Bill Clinton) is big big news.
Americans are somewhat tolerant, but I wouldn't say really tolerant.
The 60's longhairs grew up and grew more conservative (not that that is all that bad or unexpected...It comes with paying property taxes!).
: After reading numerous posts on this board today from Jeremy's situation in HS to the other posts made by people from other countries, I've come to conclude that America isn't quite as tolerant as many would think.
:
: most of the respondants from Israel to Europe have stated that there isn't any discrimination in school or the work place regarding Men with long hair and have indicated that even many white color professionals have long hair in these countries.
: this is the 21st century and we're telling boys in school to get short haircuts and the same is prevalent in many workplaces.
: Why is America still in the dark ages with the issue of Men wearing long hair?
: Didn't the longhairs of the 1960s fight for the right to wear their hair long?
: what happened?
Re: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair?
Posted by Tim Beard on April 24, 2002 at 04:53:09: Previous Next
In Reply to: Why is the U.S so uptight about hair? posted by Hipster on April 12, 2002 at 18:05:08:
I think the reason is money. For about the past 100 years corporations have been selling hair removal products. When Television was commercialized, the medium made people unconsciously decide to control hair. Even though technology is changing, Americans still seek "free" entertainment produced by corporate greed. They don't have time for the finer things in life such as education, playing your own music, learning a foreign language and forming real friendships. This lack of a wholesome upbringing leaves people more susceptible to being sold on the idea that hair must be controlled.
People who study commercial television for the first 20 years of their life lack the ability to select a qualified job applicant. It is easier to select a hairstyle when you don't know what abilities you are looking for.
In the 1960's, the short-hair money met a competitor. Long-hair money was discovered in mass entertainment, especially rock music. Hopefully, in a few decades long hair will become more acceptable when more people born after 1960 have more power.
: most of the respondants from Israel to Europe have stated that there isn't any discrimination in school or the work place regarding Men with long hair and have indicated that even many white color professionals have long hair in these countries.
: what happened?