Question for Nyghtfall & all
Posted by FITMUS on November 16, 2002 at 00:41:51: Previous Next
This is a follow-up to Remi's thread regarding the need for protection against discrimination against long-haired men. I haven't been on in a few days, so I thought I'd post a fresh thread.
I wholeheartedly agree with Remi that there needs to be some type of protection against discrimination against men with long hair. While I respect Nyghtfall's opinion that long hair could be conceived as a little more than a fashion statement, something is fundamentally wrong when women can have long hair in the work place and make their "fashion statement", but men can't. I mean after all, isn't it a safe assumption that many, if not most, women have long hair to make a "fashion statemtn"? To me, this is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. True, one can not change the color of their skin color (racial discrimination unconstitutional), one can not change their sex (inequality b/w men and women unconstitutional), and one cannot change their handicap (ADA & Civil Rights Acts passed to protect their rights). And true, hair length is something in our reasonable control.
However, I have a couple of questions for Nyghtfall, just out of curiosity and friendly debate. I believe subjective reasons for growing are irrelevant in respect to long hair discrimination against a man in the work environment...who cares what his reason is to grow..."fashion statement" or "identity". I also think it's irrelevant that hair length is in a man's control (it's in a woman's control, too), while race, sex, and handicap are not, at least reasonably. The bottom line is that men are being discriminated against in the workplace for having long hair, while women are not.
So, Nyghtfall, aside from the subjective reason(s) why men are growing their hair (fashion or identity), do you think it's fair, and equal treatment, for a woman to have long hair in a particular work environment, but not a man, simply because of his sex? Do you think this is a form of sexual discrimination?
P.S.--Although the question is mainly addressed to Nyghtfall, I'd like to hear anyone who has an opinion. Lastly, I'd like to reiterate that this thread was for friendly debate, that's all.
YES...BUT
Posted by Santiago on November 16, 2002 at 01:17:58: Previous Next
In Reply to: Question for Nyghtfall & all posted by FITMUS on November 16, 2002 at 00:41:51:
"one can not change their sex (inequality b/w men and women unconstitutional),"
Technically, you can change your sex, if you have money to get several operations. Just saying
"I also think it's irrelevant that hair length is in a man's control (it's in a woman's control, too), while race, sex, and handicap are not, at least reasonably."
Michael Jackson proved you can change your race
But after all it is discrimination, it should be protected by law. Its stupid and biased. Another guy posted about society taking everything without complaining. However there are groups, radical, yes, but they fight for their beliefs. There is even a group against fast food stablishments! Go figure. While this groups are seen very bad by society, we ca fight for it, true, we won't march on the streets, or chain ourselves to trees, but we have a right here people, what law says that men should keep their hair short? We have a right to choose. We have to do something, thousands of americans would be glad to join our fight (if there is one).
Hair shouldn't be a problem at work, women who need to have their hair up for safety, hygiene, or any other reason are not told to cut it. Why the hell should we do it? Its the land of the free, right? But we don't have the freedom to have long hair and a good paying job??? Its outrageous
Re: YES...BUT
Posted by FITMUS on November 16, 2002 at 02:32:55: Previous Next
In Reply to: YES...BUT posted by Santiago on November 16, 2002 at 01:17:58:
Hi Santiago,
It's funny, because I knew I had to try to articulate myself in a way that would avoid the response that you CAN change your sex and race...and I was thinking exactly of sex changes and Michael Jackson, which you mentioned. But that's why I said:
"I also think it's irrelevant that hair length is in a man's control (it's in a woman's control, too), while race, sex, and handicap are not, at least REASONABLY."
In retrospect, I suppose I should have been clearer. But thanks for the response. :)
Re: YES...BUT
Posted by delta9dude on November 17, 2002 at 02:42:30: Previous Next
In Reply to: YES...BUT posted by Santiago on November 16, 2002 at 01:17:58:
: Micheal Jackson proved you can change your species.
Re: Question for Nyghtfall & all
Posted by longhair on November 16, 2002 at 02:09:46: Previous Next
In Reply to: Question for Nyghtfall & all posted by FITMUS on November 16, 2002 at 00:41:51:
: This is a follow-up to Remi's thread regarding the need for protection against discrimination against long-haired men. I haven't been on in a few days, so I thought I'd post a fresh thread.
: I wholeheartedly agree with Remi that there needs to be some type of protection against discrimination against men with long hair. While I respect Nyghtfall's opinion that long hair could be conceived as a little more than a fashion statement, something is fundamentally wrong when women can have long hair in the work place and make their "fashion statement", but men can't. I mean after all, isn't it a safe assumption that many, if not most, women have long hair to make a "fashion statemtn"? To me, this is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. True, one can not change the color of their skin color (racial discrimination unconstitutional), one can not change their sex (inequality b/w men and women unconstitutional), and one cannot change their handicap (ADA & Civil Rights Acts passed to protect their rights). And true, hair length is something in our reasonable control.
: However, I have a couple of questions for Nyghtfall, just out of curiosity and friendly debate. I believe subjective reasons for growing are irrelevant in respect to long hair discrimination against a man in the work environment...who cares what his reason is to grow..."fashion statement" or "identity". I also think it's irrelevant that hair length is in a man's control (it's in a woman's control, too), while race, sex, and handicap are not, at least reasonably. The bottom line is that men are being discriminated against in the workplace for having long hair, while women are not.
: So, Nyghtfall, aside from the subjective reason(s) why men are growing their hair (fashion or identity), do you think it's fair, and equal treatment, for a woman to have long hair in a particular work environment, but not a man, simply because of his sex? Do you think this is a form of sexual discrimination?
: P.S.--Although the question is mainly addressed to Nyghtfall, I'd like to hear anyone who has an opinion. Lastly, I'd like to reiterate that this thread was for friendly debate, that's all.
I believe it is sex discrimination. If it's good enough for a woman, it's good enough for a man as well, be it the work place or in life in general. Bye.
Follow Up
Posted by FITMUS on November 16, 2002 at 02:27:10: Previous Next
In Reply to: Question for Nyghtfall & all posted by FITMUS on November 16, 2002 at 00:41:51:
Just wanted to say that Nyghtfall's recent post stating that he wouldn't discuss any discriminatory posts anymore was not posted on the board until after I posted my message dicussing discrimination. So, Nyghtfall, I understand if you don't respond to my question. :)
Re: Follow Up
Posted by Nyghtfall on November 16, 2002 at 09:59:01: Previous Next
In Reply to: Follow Up posted by FITMUS on November 16, 2002 at 02:27:10:
: Just wanted to say that Nyghtfall's recent post stating that he wouldn't discuss any discriminatory posts anymore was not posted on the board until after I posted my message dicussing discrimination. So, Nyghtfall, I understand if you don't respond to my question. :)
Thank you.
;)
Re: Question for Nyghtfall & all
Posted by Robert on November 16, 2002 at 06:19:34: Previous Next
In Reply to: Question for Nyghtfall & all posted by FITMUS on November 16, 2002 at 00:41:51:
I am very much in agreement with you here. Why a man grows his hair long (or short, etc) is irrelevent. It's his body. As long as his deportment does not interfere with safety and appropriate conduct in the workplace, it's irrelevent. I view this on the same level as questions of religion and politics at work: what my religious and political affiliations may be are completely irrelevent in interviews and in how I function at work. Anyone who asks, unless they are close friends as well, is out of line.
Women are never questioned about their hair inthe work place, and it is not an issue in their being hired. Neither should it be for men.
Robert
Re: Question for Nyghtfall & all
Posted by Victor on November 16, 2002 at 14:46:12: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: Question for Nyghtfall & all posted by Robert on November 16, 2002 at 06:19:34:
: Women are never questioned about their hair inthe work place, and it is not an issue in their being hired. Neither should it be for men.
This is certainly not true. I've heard many stories about longhaired ladies who have been pressured into cutting their hair short. I will grant, though, that it is less frequent than for men.
Re: Question for Nyghtfall & all
Posted by FITMUS on November 16, 2002 at 16:01:05: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: Question for Nyghtfall & all posted by Victor on November 16, 2002 at 14:46:12:
I think the key issue is that if there is pressure to cut for a man, there should be the same pressure for a woman...equality. Of course, I don't think either should be pressured to cut their hair. :)
In fact, I almost see women as a safety net. As long as most women prefer to have long hair, or at least the CHOICE to have long hair, I think men have a fighting chance due to the Equal Protection Clause since most, if not all, employers don't discriminate against women with long hair because it's "normal" for a woman to want that choice. And I can't really foresee most women feeling otherwise.
Intergender Equality
Posted by Victor on November 18, 2002 at 18:45:22: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: Question for Nyghtfall & all posted by FITMUS on November 16, 2002 at 16:01:05:
Intergender equality is not as straightforward as it would seem. Consider a bathroom for example. Should women get urinals? Should men get couches?
Perhaps it's an absurd situation. However, consider the myriad other situations that are not absurd. I'll only list one: women frequently are required to wear bras, but men not only are not required to wear them, they are sometimes required to not wear them.
The fact is that men and women are different.
Follow-Up for Victor
Posted by FITMUS on November 19, 2002 at 18:08:10: Previous Next
In Reply to: Intergender Equality posted by Victor on November 18, 2002 at 18:45:22:
"Intergender equality is not as straightforward as it would seem. Consider a bathroom for example. Should women get urinals? Should men get couches?
Perhaps it's an absurd situation. However, consider the myriad other situations that are not absurd. I'll only list one: women frequently are required to wear bras, but men not only are not required to wear them, they are sometimes required to not wear them.
The fact is that men and women are different"
Hi Victor,
True, men and women are definitely PHYSICALLY different and, to some degree, mentally different. However, to have actionable sexual discrimination, we need the following 3 prongs to be satisfied: 1) discriminatory treatment (ie--a line drawn in treating men & women), 2) unequal treatment is 'put in issue' by a sufficient amount of society (or the point is moot), and 3) NO difference based on PHYSICAL characteristics between the man & woman.
For example, I have never heard of a woman complain about not having a urinal in a public restroom, nor is there any law that I know of mandating men's bathrooms to contain a urinal. Men also have not made a public issue of having couches or lush mirrors in their public restrooms, nor is there any law mandating such for women. With these examples, as far as I'm aware, there is no law or rule mandating those requirements, so there is no discrimination to even analyze (prong 1 not satisfied). And even if there were rules mandating those requirements, there are not a sufficient number of men or women to put couches & urinals in issue (prong 2 not satisfied), and there IS a physical difference in our excretory systems justifying urinals in men's bathrooms where it's practical for men to take a leak standing, and women to sit (prong 3 not satisfied). In fact, from what little experience I have, it seems like it's not "practicality" but out of "necessity" that women don't have urinals since women CAN'T pee standing up without creating a mess (don't ask how I know that! lol).
As far as the bra example, I assume you're referring to in the workplace. It's funny, because my wife also brought up the fact that dress codes are different for men and women in the workplace, which is principally similar to your "bra" argument, since a bra is a form of attire. However, workplace dress codes are based on physical difference. For debate purposes, I'll assume that there is a written policy in companies regarding disparaging treatment with bras for both men and women, although I am not aware of any such company policies for either gender (thereby satisfying prong 1). There is a physical difference...Women have breasts, men don't. On the other hand, hair from a man is the same as a women's, at least visually to the naked eye and from what I'm aware, also at a cellular level. I believe virtually everyone, including women themselves, feel that a bra on women is proper in the workplace and, conversely, that a bra on a man is not. Therefore, the above bra discrimination is not 'put in issue' by men & women (prong 2 not satisfied), and is based on physical differences (prong 3 not satisfied). The same with different dress codes...dress is based on physical differences AND the codes are accepted by virtually everyone in each gender (not put in issue).
Hair, on the other hand, is at least somewhat in issue since I'm sure we'd all agree that we've known for sometime that men, on the basis of gender, are discriminated by employers for having long hair, enough to where they care. Secondly, there is no substantial physical difference between a man's hair, and women's hair. Because I know there are expressed policies of employers not allowing long hair on men simply because of gender, prong 1 is satisfied (different treatment b/w men & women); the discriminatory policies are 'put in issue' by many men, but the question is, "do we have a SUFFICIENT number?" (prong 2 may be satisfied); lastly, there is no physical difference between men's and women's hair (prong 3 satisfied).
Excretory systems=we're different; breasts=we're different; hair=we're the same.
So, out of friendly debate, I challenge you to find a situation that satisfies all three of the above prongs where you do not deem the action discriminatory. In other words, can you think of a justifiable instance where there is 1) a discriminatory rule (one that draws a line in treatment b/w men and women), 2) that is put in issue by a sufficient amount of society, 3) where there is no substantial physical difference between the man & the woman? I can't.
Re: Follow-Up for Victor
Posted by Victor on November 19, 2002 at 21:58:06: Previous Next
In Reply to: Follow-Up for Victor posted by FITMUS on November 19, 2002 at 18:08:10:
First, I do not accept without argument, a need for your three-pronged approach. On what basis do you come up with those three prongs? You say, "to be actionable..." so I presume there is some legal basis for saying this. Nevertheless, I will address some of your points:
"men and women are definitely PHYSICALLY different and, to some degree, mentally different."
I would say to a large degree. Ever heard of the book, Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus (or did I get it backward?
However, workplace dress codes are based on physical difference.
Not all. What physical difference is responsible for the sometimes requirement for women to wear panty hose -- or for men to wear neckties -- or for men to be required to button up their shirt and for women to be allowed to have open necklines?
On the other hand, hair from a man is the same as a women's, at least visually to the naked eye and from what I'm aware, also at a cellular level.
I disagree with you here. Women, on average, have twice as many hairs on the tops of their heads as non-balding men. Furthermore, baldness is far more commom among men than among women. Perhaps you regard this differently, but men also have moustaches, beards, hairy arms, and hairy backs. Women, generally don't. Finally, terminal length for unfettered hair is on average longer on women than on men.
I believe virtually everyone, including women themselves, feel that a bra on women is proper in the workplace and, conversely, that a bra on a man is not.
It is not so long ago that a similar statement could be said of hair.
So, out of friendly debate, I challenge you to find a situation that satisfies all three of the above prongs where you do not deem the action discriminatory. In other words, can you think of a justifiable instance where there is 1) a discriminatory rule (one that draws a line in treatment b/w men and women), 2) that is put in issue by a sufficient amount of society, 3) where there is no substantial physical difference between the man & the woman? I can't.
How about seggregating dorms?
Re: Follow-Up for Victor
Posted by FITMUS on November 20, 2002 at 18:30:20: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: Follow-Up for Victor posted by Victor on November 19, 2002 at 21:58:06:
Thanks for the response, Victor. Here is my response, again out of friendly debate.
"First, I do not accept without argument, a need for your three-pronged approach. On what basis do you come up with those three prongs? You say, "to be actionable..." so I presume there is some legal basis for saying this."
--The test is just my opinion and suspected justification for society (as opposed to just "me") in coming up with some of the lines drawn between men and women in support of my argument that discriminating against a man for having long hair is different than other societal rules. However, my "2nd prong" is derived from the basic legal concept of "standing" which is that if a person is not an interested party, there is no cause of action...so that's the only legal principle I asserted.
"I would say to a large degree [mental differences]. Ever heard of the book, Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus (or did I get it backward?"
--No, you got it right. But I've also spoken to some women who are offended by the book in that we aren't that much different mentally...we all have the same basic needs and I would argue, the same desires, maybe just in a different hierarchy. In any event, the purpose of the statement was to show that mental differences, as you pointed out, are debatable as where physical differences between a man and woman are, for the most part, cut and dry.
: However, workplace dress codes are based on physical difference.
"Not all. What physical difference is responsible for the sometimes requirement for women to wear panty hose -- or for men to wear neckties -- or for men to be required to button up their shirt and for women to be allowed to have open necklines?"
--Not all, but most. The ones that aren't are debatable, but a substantial amount of people aren't willing to put them in issue. Applying my three prong test: 1) Is there a line drawn b/w men and women? Yes. 2) Is it put in issue? No, I don't think a sufficient amount of society is willing to argue that men must wear pantyhose (or bras as you previously stated) and women wear neckties. I've never heard of a "buttoning" policy, but that one seems more debatable. 3) Is there a physical difference? True, legs are basically the same on a man & a woman, but if there is a panty hose policy, it's usually because they wear skirts, and men don't, I would assume, mostly out of choice. With neckties and buttons, the physical difference is obviously breasts, but I do concede here that physical difference would play no part in justifying neckties or a policy that mandates a man to button up completely. In sum here, society is not substantially putting your examples in issue.
"I disagree with you here. Women, on average, have twice as many hairs on the tops of their heads as non-balding men. Furthermore, baldness is far more commom among men than among women. Perhaps you regard this differently, but men also have moustaches, beards, hairy arms, and hairy backs. Women, generally don't. Finally, terminal length for unfettered hair is on average longer on women than on men"
--I never said the PATTERN OF GROWTH is the same for a man and a woman. Rather, I said the ACTUAL HAIR is the same. Take a 3 inch strand of hair from a man and from a woman, lay them next to each other and they'll look the same...even under a microscope.
"It is not so long ago that a similar statement could be said of hair"
--Although I see no evidence to your assertion, even if it was true, I'm sure there were, and still are, a significant more amount of people that find long hair more acceptable on a man then a bra or panty hose (put in issue--prong 2). And I think it will remain so, for obvious physical reasons (prong 3).
"How about seggregating dorms?"
--this example does NOT satisfy all three prongs, only one prong. 1) Is there a line drawn between men and women? Yes, prong 1 satisfied. 2) Is the line-drawing put in issue? Clearly, no. Most of society, especially females, is happy with gender segregation in the dorms (prong 2 not satisfied). 3) Is there no physical difference? No (I know it's a double negative), the segregation IS based on a physical difference, ie--our reproductive systems, so we don't see them and a right of privacy that our society is willing to recognize.
I think we'd both agree that societal trend has a lot to do with our laws. Indeed, if you look into the history of racial segregation, it started out where much of society favored the "separate but equal" doctrine and allowed segregated schools for blacks and whites (this was adopted into law through the Supreme Court case Plessey vs. Ferguson). However, there was a trend where blacks were winning in lower courts against segregation. Eventually, there were so many cases at the lower levels that the Supreme Court eventually overruled Plessy vs. Ferguson and found that "separate" was not "equal". Racial discrimination was put in issue by the blacks. I hope discrimination against a man in the workplace for having long hair simply on the basis of gender will also be put in issue my enough people...men and women.
As far as physical differences (which was my prong 3), I came up with that on the fly to try to articulate what I think is society's justification for some line-drawing that is done today. Without the use of any fancy prongs, if we all stepped back from some of the examples you stated versus hair discrimination, I think most of us would say that there is something (which is why I stated "physical differences")that makes it ok ok to not force a man to wear a bra on the job, and something NOT ok about discriminating against a man in the workplace for having long hair, simply on the basis of gender.
As you pointed out, there might be other grey areas for sexual discrimination. However, I simply think it's wrong in the area of hair (of course!) because there 1) is a line drawn between a man and a woman in regard to having long hair in the workplace, 2) there are at least some people, both men and women, that feel it's wrong (put in issue) and 3) there is no difference in STRUCTURE between a mans' and a woman's hair, as opposed to drawn lines on the basis of our reproductive systems (segregation in dorms so we don't see each others' "privates", bra's for women only because men don't have breasts, etc).
Re: Follow-Up for Victor
Posted by Victor on November 20, 2002 at 22:36:11: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: Follow-Up for Victor posted by FITMUS on November 20, 2002 at 18:30:20:
: I've never heard of a "buttoning" policy, but that one seems more debatable.
Are you serious? Usually it's in the same breath as the necktie policy. I have always had a problem with neckties, and when forced to wear one, I made sure to keep the upper button loose. I couldn't stand the constriction. It turns out that there is a study showing that this sort of necktie wearing is damaging to the health. Don't ask me for a reference. I don't have it. The issue hasn't concerned me for a long time.
: Is there a physical difference? True, legs are basically the same on a man & a woman, but if there is a panty hose policy, it's usually because they wear skirts, and men don't, I would assume, mostly out of choice.
I was going to mention that skirts/dresses are sometimes required of women, but I think that mostly went out with women's lib.
: With neckties and buttons, the physical difference is obviously breasts, but I do concede here that physical difference would play no part in justifying neckties or a policy that mandates a man to button up completely. In sum here, society is not substantially putting your examples in issue.
Hmmm. I think neckties may be the perfect example. You even have people madly ripping their ties off on TV programs. It's pretty clear that mean generally don't like wearing them. They are often required, but almost always only by men. And they can be hazardous.
I remember once when a service man was called in to the office to fix our broken line printer. At one point in the operation, the end of his tie started feeding into the printer. Only through his expertise (in knowing exactly where the power button was without having to look) and quick reflexes was he able to save himself from a rather painful choking.
I asked him about it afterward, and he cursed the infernal dress code, remarking that he went through several ties a month this way.
: --I never said the PATTERN OF GROWTH is the same for a man and a woman. Rather, I said the ACTUAL HAIR is the same.
Surely the pattern of growth is part of the actual hair. Or did you mean to say that a strand of hair is no different? But then, I thought you were referring to this only when talking about doing down to a cellular level. Men's hair is, on average, by the way, thicker than women's hair, but I don't think that is a major factor in appearance, which is where dress codes come in.
: Take a 3 inch strand of hair from a man and from a woman, lay them next to each other and they'll look the same...even under a microscope.
Well, no they won't, but I won't argue if you said you can't tell by looking what the sex of the person that the hair came from was. By the way, I could take two neighboring hairs from my beard and lay them side by side, and you'd think they came from two difference species.
: "It is not so long ago that a similar statement could be said of hair"
: --Although I see no evidence to your assertion, even if it was true, I'm sure there were, and still are, a significant more amount of people that find long hair more acceptable on a man then a bra or panty hose (put in issue--prong 2). And I think it will remain so, for obvious physical reasons (prong 3).
I think that in the generation before the Beatles, both would have been received about equally as well. I grew up in the 60s and caught the tail end of this, I think.
: 2) Is the line-drawing put in issue? Clearly, no. Most of society, especially females, is happy with gender segregation in the dorms (prong 2 not satisfied).
So instead of much of society now it must be a majority? If that is indeed part of your 3-tiered approach, I reject it based on that alone.
: 3) Is there no physical difference? No (I know it's a double negative), the segregation IS based on a physical difference, ie--our reproductive systems, so we don't see them and a right of privacy that our society is willing to recognize.
Well, you are making an asusmption here what the difference is based on. I don't care to discuss the dormitory issue further since I think it was a rather poor example. I'll go with the necktie example. I think it's actually a really good one.
: I think we'd both agree that societal trend has a lot to do with our laws.
Too true. Laws are only good if the people respect them.
On whether long hair should be discouraged in the workplace, I prefer to leave gender out of it completely. It should not be discouraged unless it has some impact on the work or other aspect of the business. This is especially true of hair length because that is not something that can be easily altered between home and work -- and we truly should have the freedom to be whomever we want in the privacy of our own homes. Regulating hair length at work reaches too far into our private lives.
Note that I still believe there are places where hair length rules are appropriate, for example, the firehouse, but they are few and far between.
Re: Follow-Up for Victor
Posted by FITMUS on November 21, 2002 at 00:40:01: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: Follow-Up for Victor posted by Victor on November 20, 2002 at 22:36:11:
1.) Well then, it seems like I'm finding a common thread. I think we both agree that society has a large say on the direction of the law (women's right to vote, minorities are people and not property, segregation according to race unconstitutional, etc), for these things were ok at one point, but became unacceptable as society changed. Therefore, it's safe to say that whenever there is a significant amount of society (whatever that magical number may be) that puts the discriminatory action in issue, change will likely occur, provided it's constitutional. BTW, in regard to:
Me--:2) Is the line-drawing put in issue? Clearly, no. Most of society, especially females, is happy with gender segregation in the dorms (prong 2 not satisfied).
You--"So instead of much of society now it must be a majority? If that is indeed part of your 3-tiered approach, I reject it based on that alone"
The point there was to prove only that there is an INsignificant(again, whatever the magical number is, who knows) amount of society willing to disrupt segregation by gender in school dorms, not that you necessarily need a majority to bring about a change.
I think we'd both agree that there is much "technical" sexual discrimination (by "technical" I mean line-drawing that is not put in issue by a significant amount of people, such as workplace attire, segregation in the dorms, segregation of public bathrooms, and unfortunately, hair length for men in the workplace). However, I think we'd both agree that within this "technical" sexual discrimination, there could be a hierarchy of which line-drawing methods are more offensive to society then others. It is this hierarchy that separates some of the issues you presented vs. long hair on men in the workplace. I think societal interest is stronger (meaning against) when it comes to, as you implied,: mandating men to wear bra's in the workplace to make them equal to women; mandating men wear panty hose in the workplace to make them equal to women; and lastly, implicit the argument you liked...mandating that either neckties are not necessary for men, or mandating that they are necessary for women. On the other hand, I think societal interest is lower (meaning might allow) and the discrimination is more offensive when disriminating for long hair on a man, for much the reason that you previously stated...long hair, unlike a necktie, can NOT easily be changed at the end of the day and during other non-working hours. Again, that's my opinion. As far as which disrimination, out of neckties and long hair in the workplace, has a more "significant" number of society is unknown and without concrete, valid statistical evidence, we're at a standstill.
2.) I also wholeheartedly agree with your statement, "On whether long hair should be discouraged in the workplace, I prefer to leave gender out of it completely. It should not be discouraged unless it has some impact on the work or other aspect of the business. This is especially true of hair length because that is not something that can be easily altered between home and work -- and we truly should have the freedom to be whomever we want in the privacy of our own homes. Regulating hair length at work reaches too far into our private lives."
Ok, so do we agree on the above? :)
Re: Intergender Equality
Posted by Robert on November 19, 2002 at 22:41:44: Previous Next
In Reply to: Intergender Equality posted by Victor on November 18, 2002 at 18:45:22:
Sure we are different. I don't think anyone is going to argue that. You site only examples of things that are different, but when it comes to hair, men and women grow it pretty much the same way. Hair is one of thsoe places where we are not different--and institutions impose rules that, of themselves, differentiate. Parental leave is perhaps a better example. No one would argue the mothers and fathers are different in many respects, not the least of which is the roles they played in getting a child here. However, when it comes to loving their children and needing time off to care for them, moms and dad are not different--institutions and cultures have required them to act differently. Children suffer.
Robert
: Intergender equality is not as straightforward as it would seem. Consider a bathroom for example. Should women get urinals? Should men get couches?
: Perhaps it's an absurd situation. However, consider the myriad other situations that are not absurd. I'll only list one: women frequently are required to wear bras, but men not only are not required to wear them, they are sometimes required to not wear them.
: The fact is that men and women are different.
Re: Intergender Equality
Posted by FITMUS on November 21, 2002 at 15:33:19: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: Intergender Equality posted by Robert on November 19, 2002 at 22:41:44:
Well said...
Re: Intergender Equality
Posted by RedRocker on November 20, 2002 at 21:57:56: Previous Next
In Reply to: Intergender Equality posted by Victor on November 18, 2002 at 18:45:22:
I tend to agree. But, it would sure be funny to see how women would use a urinal. Ha ha.
Re: Question for Nyghtfall & all
Posted by Treyn on November 16, 2002 at 09:27:49: Previous Next
In Reply to: Question for Nyghtfall & all posted by FITMUS on November 16, 2002 at 00:41:51:
I look at it this way. A company of any kind doesn't have to hire you for any reason, no matter how qualified you are. If he/she doesn't like the fact that your female/male/black/white/long haired or many other etc's, he just simply has the right to say "We'll look this over and maybe get back to you." They are only required by law not to mention these things as reason's why. My companies warehousing/delivery crew consist of only men, although there are women out there physically qualified to carry furniture, my boss has always had only men on the crew. My boss can hire anyone he wants, as long as he doesn't verbally tell them that it's for any descrimatory reason, though maybe secretly it could be. Now, with the point that Nyghtfall made, I am with him. He pretty much stated that there are higher priorities in life than having long hair. If a chance for an awesome paying job came along for me and cutting my hair was a requirement for being hired, my hair would be cut no questions asked. My family and a possible better future is way more important to me than long hair. As things are with my job, it's no problem and I am thankful for that. I guess I'm not that extreme about hair, but that doesn't make me out of place on this board, nor Nyghtfall either. I just see it that him and I are thinking responsably about things more important to us in our own lives. I would rather be a finatially stable short hair than a struggling longhair. Peace!
Follow-Up for Treyn
Posted by FITMUS on November 16, 2002 at 15:52:01: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: Question for Nyghtfall & all posted by Treyn on November 16, 2002 at 09:27:49:
Hi Treyn,
I understand where you're coming, and also know the reality that employers can choose to not hire, or fire, an employee for certain subjective reasons, while expressly stating other lawful reasons. The same thing happens with pregnant women...a pregnant woman won't be hired because she didn't "have the qualifications", but the real unexpressed reason is because she's pregnant & that could raise the company's insurance and there's all the problems for a company including maturnity leave and doctor's visits, complications, etc. The same type of "unexpressed" reasons also come up with elderly people in the workforce and, as you stated, with long haired men.
However, as I appreciate and respect the opinion, the response didn't answer my question. My question was not what the priorities are in having long hair and whether a peson should cut it if it meant losing money and causing a hardship on the family, but "do you think it's fair, and equal treatment, for a woman to have long hair in a particular work environment, but not a man, simply because of his sex? Do you think this is a form of sexual discrimination?" So, again, I pose that question to you.
Follow-Up for Fitmus
Posted by Treyn on November 16, 2002 at 20:35:47: Previous Next
In Reply to: Follow-Up for Treyn posted by FITMUS on November 16, 2002 at 15:52:01:
I suppose I would consider that to be discriminent. I used to always wonder years ago why they let women have long hair in restraunt work but wouldn't allow men to have it by saying the hair would get in the food. I was told that once by a restraunt manager. I thought, "Couldn't womens hair get in the food just as well?"