new thread
Does anyone of you think it is possible for our elected officials to propose some form of legislation to pass a law against job discrimination on the basis of Hair length?
I would like to hear your suggestions or opinions regarding this issue.
Why not? After all there are laws against race, sex, religious discrimination and discrimination on the basis of sexual preference, so why not discrimination on the basis of hair length which is a lifestyle choice too.
Only problem is that unlike ethnic groups, women, religious groups, gays and lesbians, longhaires don't seem to have set up many such organisations to demand such anti-discriminatory legislation.
Charles
the process of working such a law into the books would undoubtedly precipitate a backlash of acts against longhairs. the best way to overcome prejudice is to quietly live down the bad rap you have inherited by wearing your hair as you do. i suspect that most people do not care about longhair injustice and discrimination and would find the whole issue to be silly... and unlike religion, race and gender- you can cut off your long hair to land that job, make that court date or whatever. if your ethnicity differs visibly from the majority, there's no way of shielding yourself from the ignorance of others. additionally, i believe that such legislation would not only not pass, but be soundly defeated, sending a message to some that anti-longhair discrimination is ok. best to leave the issue alone.
I've never had any problem at work about my hair. Frankly, I don't understand why anybody would want to work for an outfit that had its priorities that screwed up. Take control of your own life and don't wait around for George or Al to take care of your problems...
There was a backlash against Blacks in the south when Martin Luther King organized them and they refused to conform to the Jim Crow laws any longer. the police would hose them down and sick attack dogs upon them. Imagine if they had thought the way that you did forty years ago. I am sure some of the posters here were probably around during that time and remember this.
somehow to me, anti-longhair bias just doesn't register in the same league as racism. long haired men are not being systematically denied employment and housing to the degree of the black person in the '60's... you don't find seperate 'longhair only' facilities that you used to find 'colored only' in the south. what longhairs today are experiencing should never ever be compared to what americans of african ancestry have had to endure for centuries... your attempt to draw a parallel between the two not only cheapens civil rights but takes credibility away from the longhair cause. i have experienced people's attitudes and it isn't fun, but guess what, life ain't fair so buck up and deal with it. i moved on and am secure with where i am in life... and it has been years since i've heard as much as a snicker. we CHOOSE not to have our hair cut so we had BETTER accept that there might be repercussions for us making that choice. let's put it this way... forcing longhair rights onto the national political agenda might just be the one thing that will inspire me to get my hair cut.
Discrimination of any kind is bad, whether racial, religious, sexual, ethnic, sexual orientation, and even HAIR LENGTH!
I agree with you that there have never been seperate bathrooms for long haired men.
However around thirty years ago, many Long haired men were not permitted in many places, including Disny Land and Disny World.
Long Haired Men planned a protest and won the battle!
You are lucky if your employer allows you to wear your hair any length you choose.
Many Men don't have that option.
I know of many guys who use to have Long hair and had to cut it short for a job. some were even hired with Long hair! When a change in management occurred they were informed to cut it short or leave.
When I asked them why they didn't quit, the main reason was that they had a family to support and their kids came first and their job paid well enought that they could not only support their families but save for their childrens college fund as well.
they told me if they were given the choice they would grow their hair long in a minute!
So, while I agree with you that Long Haired men don't have to use seperate bathrooms, at least in the U.S, I still think allowing women the privilage of wearing their hair any length and not allowing Men the same right constitutes Discrimination.
If you decide to cut your hair off, that is your choice.
I don't think we should force everyone to have long hair either.
discrimination has its place- for example if i were scheduled to have major surgery i would be biased toward having the most skilled professional perform it... any workplace discriminates against those less qualified to fill a job opening... if a service job caters to a particularly conservative clientelle they are well within their rights to expect their personnel to conform to a standard of appearance. as a longhair, i am well within my rights not to apply for a position in that company. please don't misconstrue my argument, not allowing guys to wear their hair as they please when safety and customers is not an issue is wrong... but look at the other side of the coin... when longhair was more prevalent, the guys who wore it were mostly loser druggies with no direction in life. while long hair indicated independent thought it also was a fairly good predicter of who was going to be an unreliable problem employee. it has been fellow longhairs who have helped perpetuate the bad rap. this image will persist in society's collective mind until enough of us simply disprove it with nonconfrontational grace. no, it's not fair, but we choose to wear our hair this way- and such a choice comes with cetain drawbacks.
trying to force legislation that adds hair length to the list of things not to discriminate against will likely cement people's negative attitude towards us. taking something that has been fairly reliable in predicting who is going to be a screw-up and saying it's now protected under civil rights law will in no way be doing any of us any favors.
First of all, not all Long Haired men are "Druggies" as you mentioned.
IF many people actually believe that, than this proves how bigoted and predjudiced that they are.
the majority of the "druggies" today are very short haired males with crewcuts.
Most Long haired men I have talked to in recent years are responsible adults, not drug addicts.
You are comparing another decade such as the 1960's or 1970's to today. don't do that.during that time, the majority of young men wore their hair long and yes experimentation of drugs of all kinds was prevalent. This is where the stereotype comes from and the 1990's movie "Waynes World" helped to continue the stereotype of Long Haired men in our culture.
we live in the year 2000, not 1970. People should not judge others by Hair length, Race, Ethicity, or anything else.
What about the Long Haired Men of the 1770's? Do you think they were unreliable people too?
If it wern't for Long Haired Revolutionaries of the 1770's, America would have never come about. thank about that.
If you would like to see this sterotype change, then it is your responsibility, along with other Long Haired Men to not portray any of the negative stereotypes that are in bigoted peoples minds.
Good point, Charles.
I have never heard of any incidents in any civilian workplace requiring women to get haircuts.
However many places require Men to get short haircuts.
this could be considered a form of "SEX DISCRIMINATION" and should be addressed. If a Woman has the choice to wear her hair either Long, or Short why can't the Man have the same choice?
Many corporations, such as the Disney Corporation for instance openly admit to hiring "Gay" employees, while turning down male job applicants who refuse to get short haircuts.
While we cannot change our race, skin color, or sex(unless by a expensive sex-change operation), we can also choose or not to choose to make public our sexual orientation.
However, at this point it looks like Long Haired Males are on the losing battle.
their are several reasons why:
1) most Long haired Men aren't willing to form any type of coalittion that would represent them, like the other groups you mentioned are.
2) Most Long haired men would rather cut their locks off for the job, because of monatary value or other reasons.
3) The current Fashion For Men right now is very short hair ranging from buzzcuts to flattops to business/corporate cuts and other modified versions of these.
So until Long Haired males have a coalition that can get some form of legislative action proposed, this will probably continue.Remember to cliche that old saying "it's the squeeky wheel that gets the grease!"
have you faced this type of discrimination yourself?
I do have long hair, but I think that such a legislation would not do any good.
There has to be drawn a line at which discrimination is allowed. As a president of, say, a company that provides travel guides, I may want to ensure that all of my travel guides live up to a specific company image, such as dark and fully covering clothing (as opposed to, say miniskirts, or tie-dye clothing). It would also be reasonable for me to specify hair style requirements not only for men, but also for women.
Laws prohibiting discrimination against race, sex and religion has constitutional legal grounds, while laws prohibiting discrimination against sexual orientation (are there any? I'm guessing there are) have no link to appereance or image of employees (that is, if one gay or lesbian, you will not know that when you see one and you may never know even after prolonged business relations).
On the other hand, hair is something immediately visible, something immediately linked to appearance, something that a company has all the rights to limit or regulate.
Of course, discrimination against longhaired men is upsetting. However, legislation on the issue would probably never pass and would cause an incredible amount of controversy and resistance from corporations (the argument would be: "Oh, so we can't regulate hair length now, what's next? Letting our waiters wear twelve nose rings to work? Letting our Lexus salesmen wear purple/green-dyed hair?").
Although long hair is a lifestyle choice, it is a choice of appereance and for ever longhaired man demanding a anti-longhair-discrimination low, there will be two men or women demanding anti-dress- or anti-body-piercing- or anti-haircolor- discrimination law. Thus, a line has to be drawn at some point and that point is when a lifestyle choice interferes with job function (companies have a right to claim that appereance interferes with job functions on many jobs).
The truly upsetting longhair discrimination is when a company requires short hair on men that have jobs such as network engineers or electric technicians--jobs in which appereance really doesn't matter.
I think the real solution lies within longhair men themselves. If a company is stupid or blind enough to put short hair before a potential or current employee's skills, then that employee should look elsewhere or quit current job. That company truly DOES NOT DESERVE to have valuable workforce: after all, they don't care about skills first, the appereance is priority.
Indeed, if your company treats you wrong, have some dignity, have some self-esteem and find another job! The company will lose the skills you have to offer--well, they should've thought about it before requiring you to cut your hair. If you do cut your hair for monetary reasons or because a job with that company will be super-benificial to your career, then there ain't much wrong with that either: money/career is more of a priority than long hair for you. That is fine, that is a lifestyle choice: if you're willing, go ahead and conform to the short haircut requirement for the money or career. One day you may grow your hair back. But think twice, as such requirements really bring out the true colors of the company: how do you know they won't stop a long hair? They may further regulate your appereance. If you do care about your long hair more than the money offered by the company, it's their loss: just quit.
What the hell does body piercing and wearing blue and green colors of hair have to do with a Man being allowed the same rights as a woman concerning hair length?
If a women wants to wear long hair in any workplace, there is no problem. If she chooses to wear it short, no problem.
However, MEN ARE NOT GIVEN THE SAME OPTION IN EVERY WORK ENVIRONMENT.
I don't think many conservative corporations would allow a woman to dye her hair green and wear five nose rings that was dealing with their clientele either.
This is not a discussion on attire, but Hair length.
I have no problem with clothing/uniform requirements.
TYE DYE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A MAN BEING ACCORDED THE SAME RIGHTS
IN RELATION TO HAIR LENGTH AS A WOMAN HAS.
The examples I used may have been a little bit extreme, but the point remains.
The point is: a company has a right to require proper appearance (not ATTIRE, but APPEARANCE, which includes EVERYTHING, hair, dress, smell, everything).
What is proper appearance? That is up to the company to decide. Most companies that enforce conservative appearance use "old-fashioned" or deeply-rooted social guidelines of what appearance is proper. It is very unfortunate, but in the last century, our society has been deeming men with long hair as inappropriate and deeming women with any length hair as appropriate. Thus, a company that requires its employees to look "family-friendly" and conform to whatever "good citizen's appearance standards" (inexact terms, but you get the idea) will *naturally* require short hair for men and won't care about hair length on women. You have to understand that companies only adhere to the whatever is considered appropriate in today's society.
It just so happens that society considers men with long hair inappropriate. So, who's to blame, the companies that adhere to this (for whatever reason, either out of reasonable need or out of stupidity/messed up priorities) or the society? Obviously, the society is to blame. The day when it is socially acceptable for men to wear long hair--when any hair length is acceptable for both men and women--only then you'll see companies dropping the shorthair men requirement and treating men the same as women when it comes to hair length (of course, in general, there may still be odd companies with odd requirements).
So, men are not given the same options as women because of social understandings of what acceptable and what is not. Women DO NOT have any rights that permit them to wear any length hair. In fact, if you watched a recent Montel show on a similar issue, you would've seen an example of a corporation that requires all female employees to have
long hair (which posed problems for some African-American female employees that due to the nature of their hair were unwilling to wear their hair long).
--- Please don't blow these hairdye examples out of proportion (an impression I'm getting is that this is what you're doing). They were simply meant to illustrate that there are social guidelines to which companies conform. The example was in the context of this: Just as legislation can't prohibit discrimination against people that wear blue hair, legislation can't prohibit discrimination against men that wear long hair. And if you think that this particular hairdye argument is bullshit, I will find at least three people that swear by dyed hair and that will give you the same sort of arguments about how unfair it is that they are penalized on their jobs because of their appearance choice.
I think you are missing the point.
I have seen many Men with Short hair with sloppy appearences. their teeth was yellow. Their breath stunk and their clothes looked like they hadn't been washed in three months!
ON the other hand I have seen Long Haired Men in workplaces with impeccable manners, teeth very clean and white, and clothes were emaculate.
I know who I would prefer to hire, how about you?
As far as the hair color issue, I don't have any problems with people dying their hair different colors. I have done this myself.
this is not the issue. Hair length discrimination against Men is.
You may argue about men also not being allowed to wear earrings to work and employees in general not being permitted to display nose rings.
the difference here is, when you get off work that you can put your earring/noserings back in, but your hair is something that you cannot put back once it is shorn off.
Understand the point I am trying to Make?
No, I understand your point. You're missing *my* point. My point is that your point is irrelevant.
In other words, it doesn't matter that men with long hair can look neat. What matters is that the society considers long hair on men inappropriate PERIOD--it doesn't matter neat or sloppy! And if the society considers that inappropriate, then it is very likely that companies will also consider it inappropriate--after all, the companies only follow the current social "guidelines".
Why? If the average Joe thinks that long hair on men is "girly", "gay" or otherwise inappropriate, whether neat or sloppy, (social bias here, the social guidelines are at work), then companies will not want male employees with long hair, no matter how neat or sloppy, because of the average Joe (that is, companies follow social biases).
What can I say? It is simply unfortunate, it also sad. This situation can only be amended by changing the society, and that's not an easy and definitely not a speedy task. Let's just hope that the long hair will be well-tolerated or completely not-minded in the society sometime soon.
Well, as Dan Quayle once said, "I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change."
Are you a member of the Libertarian Party?
It appears that you favour the right of companies to decide on male employees' hair length and this is where I believe a stand must be taken in favour of the employee or the employer and in my case, I take the side of the employee.
I agree that social prejudices exist against men with long hair in many countries in the world besides the United States which prides itself of on its belief in individual freedom and human rights.
The same argument that society's prejudices against longhaired male employees on the grounds that they could be a liability to a company's image could very well be applied to any other visible minority including Blacks, Chicanos, Asians, Caucasians, people with turbans, old people, ugly people, fat people, thin people, people with polio, deformed people, invalids and so on.
Therefore if legislation can be enacted to protect visible minorities against discrimination in employment, so too can legislation be enacted to protect men with long hair against discrimination by employers.
Charles
DON'T NEED NEW LAWS.
There is enought case law to site as precedent of people who have won cases against private corporations because the corporation policy had a requirement that was personal and not related to job performance. Most of this case law had to do with Blacks wearing braids, but once the concept is established, it doesn't have to be black women, or black men only, but anyone who meets the criteria of clean and neat.
What we need are some guys to bring suit. The American Civil Liberties Union would very likely advise and possibly contribute some help. I would be the first to make a contribution to a legal defense group who took on the case.
James
Don't see why not!!!