new thread
PRESS RELEASE
The United Hairfarmers Union © 1997
8930 Banks Circle
Pensacola, Fl 32514
850-477-1462 :
Hairfarmers@worldnet.att.net
For Immediate Release
Date: October 25, 1997
Contact: Travis (Jim) Bledsoe
Phone: 850-477-1462
Hairfarmers@worldnet.att.net
Stop Hair Discrimination Today
Pensacola, Fl The United Hairfarmers Union is announcing their Annual Union
Membership Drive. The union seeks members that support the elimination of
hair discrimination.
It is a known fact that people are discriminated against daily because of their personal
choice and preference in hair growth and design. Genuine Equal Opportunity
Employment rights should and also include hair.
The union seeks members that are willing to help us educate the public on the real
problem of hair discrimination. Discrimination for any reason is morally wrong. Until
the human race is willing to include hair preference as a basic right and stops hair
discrimination, all forms of discrimination in the world will continue.
Since the beginning of time lots of great human beings have exercised their
freedom and rights to farm, cultivate and grow hair. George Washington, Ben
Franklin, Mozart, Plato, Albert Einstein, Saint Paul, and Jesus of Nazareth are
just a few of the forefathers of hairfarming. They all stood up for the rights of all
free human beings.
A union survey designed to help educate the public on hair discrimination is
attached. The survey and membership information is available at
http://www.hairfarmers.com , or mail a self-addressed stamp envelop to United
Hairfarmers Union, 8930 Banks Circle, Pensacola, Florida 32514 or call 850-477-
1462.
United, we can stop hair discrimination.
The United Hairfarmers Union
8930 Banks Circle
Pensacola, Florida 32514
Union Survey
1. Have you ever been discriminated against due to your long, short, curly, color,
shaggy, unsightly, or even a no hair situation? Yes No
2. Do you believe that genuine Equal Opportunity Employment should and does
include hair rights? Yes No
3. Do you support every human beings basic right to live and work without fear and
harassment from hair discriminating employers and uptight short hair conservatives?
Yes No
4. Do you agree and support that it is a basic human right to farm, cultivate and grow
hair? Yes No
5. Do you agree that people are discriminated against due to their own personal choice
and preference in hair growth and design? Yes No
6. Do you support the banning of hair discrimination? Yes No
7. Do you support every human beings right to live as free human beings peacefully
without any type of discrimination? Yes No
Reply by mail to address above or E-mail with question # and Yes or No to
http://hairfarmers@worldnet.att.net
Visit our web site at http://www.hairfarmers.com
Hairfarmers?
But what frightens me is what farmers all do next - harvesting.
((( shudder )))
This statement is incorrect.
Ok, first of all, barber shops were a rare commodity at the time these men were alive (particularly during Christ's time), so most men had long hair anyway; and I seriously doubt the general public concerned themselves with the issue (save for the apostle Paul). As for Mozart, Ben Franklin, and the like, most of the men at that time wore long-haired wigs, which were not only fashionable, but were considered a symbol of aristocracy. To say these men stood up for the rights of men everwhere is a hyperboly(sp?). Rebelious natures can't thrive very well in a society where long hair is the norm in the first place.
Good luck.
I can't say yes, and I can't say no. I've encountered situations where people have made odd comments or given me confused/awkward looks, but I've neve been blatantly discriminated against by anyone, personally or professionally.
No, and I'll tell you why. Hair length is a choice, as his one's own taste in fashion. It is every employer's basic right to hire people who represent the kind of image they want their company to project. If their dress code requires that men have short hair, then the employee has the expectation of the company to either adhere to it, or leave. Whereas one's skin color, for example, is NOT a choice, and that person were discriminated against because of how they naturally look, then they have grounds to file a complaint/suit. I guarantee you, also, that any potential employer would look at a prospective employee's membership in the United Hairfarmer's Union with the most sarcastic of attitudes and laugh that interviewee right out of the interview (I know I would).
No.
As a matter of personal choice, yes. The last time I looked, though, there was nothing in the Bill of Rights that guaranteed every man the RIGHT "farm" or "cultivate" their hair.
Yes.
No.
No.
Now for some closing comments:
The first time I read this post, I found myself laughing silly at the mere idea of referring the growing of hair as "farming" it. I kept thinking, "Gee, I better drag out my combine the next time I shower!"
I gotta hand it to ya, you've got chutspa. I predict, however, that it's going to be the next "Useless Site of the Month". I only hope you're joking about the very idea of the "union". I think it's the damn funniest post I've ever read. LOL
Please help me I have fallen from laughing so hard, and can't get up!
Good one Nyghthawk!!!
Still trying to get my John Deere started,
Roger
Aaaaaaauuuuuuuugh! Harvesters!!!!!!
Bill in SF
Hey I'm a Harvestor (IH)man too, you have to admit that a John Deere that does'nt start, sounds better than a Harvestor that will not start???
Not necessarily. There are two differences. First, hair is not
something you can put on after removing it, without waiting for
several years. Intimidating another person to remove hair is
not a clothing change. It is a disfigurement. If one's social,
religious, or even next employment environment has a different
requirement, one can be left unable to comply.
Second, for medical reasons, hair length is not always a choice.
Some men must not remove beards, for example, because the hair
ingrows. And many face blind people, such as myself, mainly
identify people by their hair.
I tried for decades (I am 50) to go the short hair route because
that was where all the pressures were, and I can tell you it
never did work. People who identify other people by their hair
find the shorthaired to be the grossest of the gross (they are
like people with paper bags over their heads), and the
lack of self esteem one suffers day after day seeing himself
unbelievably ugly is more than anyone can bear and remain
mentally healthy.
At some point I realized the self-consciousness was bringing
about a lack of self-confidence that was greatly impairing my
ability to function socially AND AT WORK. I let my hair grow
out, and the difference has been incredible. I liken my final
acquisition of hair to be no less than having a horrible birth
mark removed, or my face restored after a horrible accident.
Having those things done is, like growing hair, a "choice".
Should one forgo them because someone who does not have to live
in their body doesn't like their choice?
Like lilly white, huh?
Black folks can go elsewhere too, if they're not wanted, huh?
Makeup is available.... And unlike with hair removal, restoring
your usual look is easy at five o'clock.
The way we all naturally look is with long hair. If everybody
would just grow the stuff, I would be a lot happier in my
surroundings. But I'm willing to concede that others have a
right to pierce themselves, tattoo themselves, remove their hair,
or otherwise mutilate themselves if they will feel better about
themselves for so doing. And I will no longer fail to fight for
MY right to refrain.
Yes, a lot about the hairfarmers was silly. But about this
I am very serious. My survival as a normal person depends on
it. Now that I have seen what being a normal person is like,
I would never go back to all those horrible years of doing
what "they" wanted....
i suppose hereditary baldness is a choice?
i suppose grey/white hair is a choice? (ageism in employment exists)
i suppose patchy/strange hair from life saving radiation therapy
is a choice?
sure... you can always wear a toupee or wig to cover up.
just like nonwhites can wear a white pointy hood over their heads...
What do any of those points have to do with wanting long hair? The entire survey centered around discrimination of hair length, and what I said is a fact: the act of growing one's hair to their desired length is a choice for anyone who can do it.
There are conditions in relation to hair length that fall into some categories, such as disabilities or religious requirements; and, because these fall under protected categories, a person can't legally be discriminated against for these kinds of reasons. However, outside of these protected issues, there's also the matter of someone who chooses to grow their hair long, or chooses to cut it short, or shave their head bald, etc.. In these cases, where the individual has complete control, management has a right to set a dress code and expect those who are capable of meeting that dress code to do so.
This is comparable to someone who has an orthopedic disability being allowed to wear tennis shoes at work even though they are banned by the dress code, or allowing a devout Jew to wear his armakle(sp?) even if the dress code forbids hats. It's an entirely different set of circumstances.
Actually, wearing a wig could be a viable solution for someone who wants to keep his har long and wants to take a job at a company who's dress code prohibits long hair, as long as it's a decent looking wig and is put on neatly, and so forth. Most people wouldn't even notice.
I'd also like to note that, in most cases, length and style of hair, like selection of clothing, is a matter of personal expression (like someone choosing to make a statement by their appearance). While the constitution forbids the government from restricting free expression, these laws do not apply to private business, which is also why your boss is allowed to read your email and make rules forbidding the discussion of certain topics, such as salaries among co-workers. This is NOT in any way, shape or form, akin to racism. A person has no control over the color of their skin. This is one of the reasons why laws have been established making discrimination based on race illegal. Because hair length is a personal choice, and a form of personal expression, it is something that neither the constitution, nor our laws, grant protection for. As a result, what management says goes.
The term "hair farming" was first used to describe one particular
genre of "heavy metal" rock music bands during the 1980s. Groups
such as Ratt, Poison, Vain, Bon Jovi, Vinnie Vincent Invasion,
Van Halen, Enuff Z'Nuff, Warrant, and Pretty Boy Floyd come to
mind. Undoubtedly you folks out there on this bulletin board
can name many more. "Hair farmer" was already somewhat of a
euphemistic term. The more negative term was "poseur." In
other words, when the "hair farmers" were performing, they would
assume a certain arrogant, narcisstic attitude whereby they would
"thrash" their long hair onstage in time to their music as they
sang and/or played their musical instruments. "Thrashing" was
achieved by rotating or whipping the neck forwards and backwards or
side by side so that one's long hair would move around like a tassle
or pompon. The skill was to end one's performance with long hair
completely covering one's face--including the eyes.
"Poseur" carried the implication that the performers didn't have
much musical talent as musicians, and therefore had to compensate
for this lack by assuming a stereotypically marketable appearance
and attitude.
This posting shows that freedom of speech thrives on the Web.
But like with so many other things on the Web, one must proceed
cautiously. Caveat Emptor.
--Loren
I do have a somewhat unique stance on this one, since unlike the other responses I've seen, yes I have directly experienced discrimination, and unlike most people here, I can show religious texts of my religion which imply (but do not state) that long hair is prefered.
This has already been nicely answered: Saul of Tarsus was nicely against any display of beauty or vanity, we don't have portraits of Jesus, and long hair was in fashion in the eighteenth century. I will grant that Einstein had hair which was outrageous for the time (as did Mozart without the wig) - but I highly doubt any of them thought their hair was "farming" (yes, I too find the phrase ludicrous) or "the rights of all free human beings."
I agree with Victor - that would make this form of discrimination unique.
I can definately say yes to this. When working for a national restaurant chain (going unnamed) which has stated in its dress code that it believed in complete equal opportunity to the extent that all dress code requirements were the same for all employees, regardless of gender, age, etc., and I had never encountered a single problem with my hair (as it was long enough so that none ever fell out of the pony-tail, and I *never* had a single complaint of someone finding one of my hairs where it shouldn't be (hard to miss when they're copper-red and three feet long) - I was informed directly by a district manager that my application to be promoted would be accepted as soon as I got a hair cut. I checked with the corporate headquarters, found out that there was no basis for this, filed a complaint against the district manager, about which nothing was done, his decision stood. I checked and found out no lawyer would touch that kind of ridiculous case, even though it most definately was gender-based harassment by an individual and a large corporation on a pro-bono basis, and that the one lawyer I talked to assured me that it would be at the bottom of any list from a legal aid union, and in this case the discrimination would stick unless I had enough money to front the legal fees. I quit the job, but since I'm now making about 4 times as much money in the computer industry I have a hard time being bitter.
quick question: would the hair farmers union have paid my legal fees?
only on those jobs where long hair would not impair doing the job. are you planning on suing the U.S. Army?
I do not support the idea of anyone living without fear of harassment. "That which we gain too easily, we esteem too lightly." -Thomas Paine. I'd prefer to live without harassment, however the only way I could live without fear of harassment would be to live in ignorance of it.
I do agree that we "are endowed ... with certain unalienable rights: that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." and that yes, pursuit of happiness would include whatever hair style you prefered, but even I would place that pretty low on the scale of discrimination and civil liberties.
We all discriminate on the basis of appearance (including everyone reading this sentence) - what's your point?
I tend to think it's already banned in the United States, as it is illegal to discriminate against someone for employment, education, et cetera, et cetera, on the basis of gender or race - unless a place bans hair styles regardless of gender and race (and courts have even said that you can't ban race-specific hair styles)... in which case, they probably have a reason - and yes, I think there are perfectly acceptable reasons to ban long hair from a workplace.
In theory...
oh - just realised I mentioned the whole religion issue, which applies in my case: my religion is Norse Paganism, and there are skaldic poems which go on for stanza after stanza about long hair and what a glory it is and how much the gods love it (if I can find a translation which isn't copyrighted I may post some - they are quite good) - guess what, it's not a religious dictate in any legal sense, nor should it be, and even if it *was*, part of the court's answer would be "okay, limit yourself to jobs which aren't dangerous with long hair", justifying those businesses which already have short-hair codes....
-cp
I really think danger on the job is a hypocritical issue in cases where neckties are required. I watched once in horror as a computer technician was slowly, but surely sucked into a mainframe printer because his company required him to wear a tie. Fortunately, expert technician that he was, he turned off the printer before it was fatal. I made a comment about the hazard, and he said he goes through several ties a year this way!