new thread
The modern era. The new millenium. A hope of the future from however long past, with flying cars, robots, and a utopia where we all frolic through the forests and enjoy life. These are the things we dream of from childhood, inspired by our fertile imaginations and stories of old and new alike. How ironic that this is the bull**** that clogs the pipe dream, and that this world is nothing like that at all.
I won't be eating bread and ramen much longer, because I've been situationally forced to become a work slave again, and have become "privileged" to work at Bashas' "family of friends(tm)".
The good news is, their policies don't effect me and my long hair. If it did, I wouldn't be working there. However, I am still offended by just how blatantly they discriminate and make separate dress codes for males and females. For starters, if they don't like your looks, even if you looked professional aside from having blue hair, they'd still think you're trash.
We live in the year 2007. My grandpa saw cartoons with characters in flying cars and unnatural hair colors before I was even born. I wouldn't even want to bag the groceries of the person who is afraid of paying for their groceries because the man at the register is a man with a beard that is *insert dramatic music* LONGER THAN HALF AN INCH!!!!!!!! O_O
People have had beards that long since the dawn of man. In fact, they all did until they figured out they could shave, which I can only imagine became insanely popular at that period in time. I wouldn't want a beard personally, but guess what? They won't give grandpa a job, just because he's got a beard. Are you afraid of intimidating people with "the freakish bearded man?" I'm pretty sure a lot of people have grown up with images of Santa Claus.
Unfortunately, Santa couldn't get a job outside of the North Pole if he wanted to, because they would discriminate against him and force him to change his identity. He'd look around, but find most places would think him some sort of drunken vagrant.
Next up, we've got earrings. I don't touch the things myself, I have an extreme turn off for piercings. In fact, there are some people who pierce their babies ears, and these people deserved to be punched more than the people who put sweaters on dogs. At the Bashas' training, they kicked somebody out of the training for wearing earrings. You see, it's considered defiant for a guy to have any earrings, while women are required to have no more or less than one in each ear if they chose to wear earrings. I consider this sexist and offensive.
Nail polish was also an issue. Men can only have clear nail polish (what the hell is the point of that?!), and women can only have certain colors (the only ones on the list of banned colors I can remember are Black, Yellow, and Green). How often do you take notice of a person's nails, honestly? You're at the register talking to somebody, and they see you have an untraditional nail color. OMFG, you just gave Granny McFutureshock a heart attack, because she couldn't handle the agony, fear, and disgust of seeing a girl with black nail polish which is something they "just didn't do" back then.
Last up is hair color. You can't have an "extreme" style, but I guess that's not too bad, considering small children would probably be scared of them. Personally, I wouldn't dye my hair as I like the color, and dye is damaging (I've worn wigs a few times to see what I would look like, I will probably buy a few one day, I look neat with blonde, blue, green, red, and pink, and they're always fun for disguises and costumes! ^_^), but the thing is, you can have a normal hairstyle and they still wouldn't like you because of something as trivial as PIGMENT ****ING TATION!
Unnatural hair colors can look very attractive, and can be made to look professional when needed, unlike "extreme" hairstyles. Anime in particular has helped influence a number of individuals to dye their hair.
I remember in middle school, there was a girl in the Anime Club with pink hair down to her knees (and I'm not afraid to say it, I do love pink <3), which is pretty long for dyed hair, but it looked absolutely beautiful. I'd always make it convenient for her to sit next to or in front of me, but the people in the club never liked me much, being nothing short of mute and all. I would find myself shocked when the president of the club would call my name, and I'd find myself unaware of the situation at hand (Thoughts of "Oh, god. She's radiant!" are quite overwhelming). One time, I even said "Pink" where I probably should have said "Grant". XD
The class got a laugh out of it, and Mignon just looked behind herself toward me, but otherwise seemed oblivious to the fact that I was obviously entranced by her. I guess it doesn't really matter, seeing as how I never truly wanted anything to do with anybody and I've never dated anybody.
I have gone off track quite a lot though, haven't I? Reminiscing on the past has calmed me somewhat, but my point is still valid. They shouldn't force people to adhere to such ridiculous codes. So many places do this that it makes it hard for people like these, who want to be who they are as much as we do, to find work, which they require to live, which already in itself is a sick concept, that we should perish and suffer should we not live in servitude.
Of course, gloves (providing they allow those, I hope they do as I have sensitive hands) and wigs can remedy some of these problems, but the fact that the world is still so judgmental, prejudicial, stereotypical, and otherwise oppressive fills me with a deep sadness.
I can understand they are trying to appeal to a typical demographic, and most people would understandably be highly intimidated by a person with piercings all over his face, nose, and tongue with tattoos and a red and black mohawk with a skull design shaved on his head, and earrings the size of golf balls shaped like lightning bolts (and those people who choose to look like that, while they can make themselves look however they want, should be able to understand that it's simply far and away from professional), but to have something as minor as a long beard, nail polish, reasonable earrings, and unnatural hair colors be considered too inappropriate for a neighborhood grocery store is just a depressing reminder that this is not the future, and we are not so much better off than the past as we like to make ourselves believe. Yes, things could be worse, I've heard that one, but things could also be better.
I second that!
Grant, I tend to agree with you, but there is an inherent problem here. Your definition of "far and away from professional" and others definition of the same may be quite different. What about the guy with four earrings and green hair, who thinks that he has restrained himself to this to appear within reason. What you are discussing is not the presence or absence of these things, but to what degree is it acceptable. I'm sure you are aware of the "slippery slope" analogy, that once you start down it where do you stop and who sets the limits. Therefore an absolute (no earrings for guys) leaves no room for interpretation, and gives conformity within the ranks without ambiguity.
You mention sex discrimination because rules for females and males are different. Say they all were the same. Do you think sales at your store would remain constant if the guys all started wearing pink dresses and makeup to work? Of course not; many would avoid the store like the plague. Sales would fall, and the store would go out of business. Then, instead of fighting for our rights to do as we please, we are unemployed and in the job market. And how many guys would get hired still wearing the pink dress and makeup. Not very many. Especially if they had legs like mine.
Take a similar situation from the female perspective. Is it right to treat them solely as sex objects? Of course not, but try to tell that to the beer company who did the commercial with the cheerleaders in bun length skirts and undersized halters and whose sales went through the roof. Where do you draw the line?
Please don't take me wrong; as I said I tend to agree with what you have said. But you do have to consider the other point of view, and why that point of view is there.
Just some food for thought.
George
Quite frankly, I think it'd be totally badass to see Edward Scissorhands working at a grocery store. He'd probably do a pretty horrible job at just about anything that isn't in the butcher or deli section, and the children would most definitely be scared to death, but the children would be scared to death and that's what matters most! XD
Yeah, but you haven't lived through to World Wars and The Great Depression. Most elderly folk couldn't care less about current popular culture. They just want to be able to go to the store and be greeted by people with whom they feel more comfortable, which often is going to mean a conservative style, similar to what they were used to when growing up.
i think people's views of the elderly are so misconstrued. 'the elderly' are so much more accepting than anyone else i know. i have multiple piercing and tattoos, and anytime i go to a senior center or retirement home i'm surrounded by old people telling me how much they enjoy my company. old ladies walk up to me all the time to tell me how they think i'm 'just so pretty.' i used to think it was some really sick old person joke, but then i realized i was the only person under the age of forty in the places i was visiting, and they loved me for loving them. i have only once had an elderly person ask me, 'why did you do that to yourself?' but i've had that same question asked of me by people my own age and younger countless times. it's my own generation that's bigoted, not the elderly. they've already outgrown that phase, and just accept and love people as they are. it's true that we have a lot to learn from our elders.
peace,
nic
Nic, you've got that so correct. The elderly are way past the self-consious (and judgemental) phase. They are a refreshing opposite to any grade 8's ultra-sensitivity to others' opinions (and the coincident urge to lash out at the first reason in the effort to humiliate others)....Ah, to teach.
Shawn (Mr.Crow)
Nic, you've got that so correct. The elderly are way past the self-consious (and judgemental) phase. They are a refreshing opposite to any grade 8's ultra-sensitivity to others' opinions (and the coincident urge to lash out at the first reason in the effort to humiliate others)....Ah, to teach.
Shawn (Mr.Crow)
Yes, the problem is that he wants "partial" equality, which is not equality, for equality can not be partial. He's also accusing others of being judgmental and conservative while judging others at the same time, which is hypocritical. However, that doesn't mean Grant still hasn't addressed a valid problem. Making something simpler doesn't make it better; it makes it easier. Fast food is an easier snack than having to cook something yourself, but it's unlikely to be better for you. The main problem lies in with people's expectations and stereotypes, which Grant is saying need to be changed in order for there to be fairness.
This is exactly what he's trying to address--that people have stupidly conservative expectations and/or reactions to things. There's nothing wrong with a man wearing makeup or a pink dress (or any other dress). The only reason anybody would avoid the place because the men were attired in such a fashion is because they're not accustomed to seeing it and because the sexes are not given equal room for expression. We should not be turned off by seeing a man in a dress because there should be no discrimination against it--it should be as normal as a woman wearing one. Just as you likely think it's absurd to propose that all men have short haircuts, it's absurd to propose that all men wear extremely specific clothes. Jeez, pants don't even suit the male anatomy as well as dresses.
Yes, reasonable question, but the line for women is typically drawn much further than the line for the men. That's not fair.
That's one heck of a paradox, isn't it? A sarong, kilt, tunic, etc. I can imagine would be much more comfortable for a guy!
I can officially confirm the sarongs and kilts! The sense of coolness and freedom is like seriously transcendental the first time. Especially when you put back on pants.
Humans are funny, aren't they?
The theriophilic paradox says that the animal who has no reason as a faculty displays more reason than man who supposedly has the faculty for reason.
"The Satyr against Reason and Mankind" by John Wilmot, second Earl of Rochester (1647-1680), is a discussion of the theriophilic paradox in verse form.
Therion meaning wild animal or beast (Gk.)
Haha, what a patent paradox, indeed. The sad thing is that the paradox is subjective in nature, but we, as a species, continue to prove it with a preternatural urge and efficiency.
Thank you for directing me to that poem. I printed it (an annotated version), and I'm off to read it now. The first lines are kind of tragicomic--it looks like an entertaining read.
Peace
People who work in the local stores, groceries, restaurants, etc. around here look twelve shades of crazy with even dudes who have long pink dyed goatees, tattoos, piercings, and I've seen one guy with dyed eyebrows. I guess it all depends on where you are, it's more weird to see a clean cut average person sometimes around here I think.
You know, I really liked your rant. I think the common misconception amongst most of us today, and in the past, was that technology will solve our problems. It won't. Utopias cannot be driven by technology and flying cars, they have to be driven by tolerance and acceptance. This is why none of our dreams came true, we dream of the impossible. We dedicate our resources to advancing technology and not our own education and understanding.
Globalisation has made everyone more aware of each others differences, not more accepting. I was lucky that I grew up in an international environment, in a school where there are people from across more than 80 countries, although it was a British school, so that 40% or so were from Britain. I learnt that I could socialise and interact much more easily with those that did not come from the UK. My best friends are people from India, Italy, Russia, America, Holland, Lesotho, and some other African countries. They, like me, grew up amongst people different from them, and because they were a minority, they realised that to become accepted, they had to embrace others' different nationalities, religions and ethnicities. Something most of the guys from the UK in our school didn't have to do, since they had each other.
Tolerance is something that you cannot teach most people in a short period of time, or from a book. You have to, from their early childhood, throw them into the kettle of multinationality. For me, growing long hair was yet another way to open my mind to more people, and from the MLHH, it appears to be very good people.
I'm going to sum up what I think with a fabulous quote by Dalai Lama:
"We have bigger houses but smaller families:
We have more degrees but less sense;
more knowledge but less judgements;
more experts but more problems;
more medicines, but less healthiness.
We've been all the way to the moon and back,
but we have trouble crossing the street
to meet the new neighbour.
We build more computers
to hold more information,
to produce more copies than ever,
but we have less communication.
We have become long on quantity
but short on quality.
These are times of fast foods,
but slow digestion;
tall man, but short character;
steep profits, but shallow relationships.
It is time when there is much in the window
but nothing in the room."
I have always liked that quote.
I agree with you for the most part, but some of the things you said are just as discriminatory as the things you're railing against. Most noticeably this:
"In fact, there are some people who pierce their babies ears, and these people deserved to be punched more than the people who put sweaters on dogs."
What the hell? That's just as bad as getting mad when people with green hair are turned away from jobs. Yes, you have a point that it's unfair to pierce a baby's ears, since the baby has no say in the matter, but still, you're judging other people's decisions.
On a different note, yes, unnatural hair colors can look stunning. I've never actually seen a girl with completely unnaturally dyed hair in real life, but the photos of some of them with blue or pink or purple hair...*drools excessively*
lol, yeah. Anyway...good luck there.
Peace
I certainly agree that our society should be more tolerant of those who choose to live their lives in a style that goes beyond the fringe. Honestly, what's the friggin deal?
That said, Grant, NOBODY is FORCED to comply: the option to quit or avoid to simply not apply to work for a company with policies such as these is an option. There is no compulsory acceptance of the job like those people whose governments require mandatory military service. This is a voluntary job and the option exists: Keep your style and forget the job or take the job and forget/supress/hide your style. The company is the one who stands to gain or lose by the public perception of their brand. Their brand's perception is affected largely by the front-line workers; those whom are given the most stringent dress code requirements.
It isn't ideal, I agree, and people will start relaxing these standards as the world continues to open up to new ideas. (I can't see our generation continuing to mandate that people dress like the Beaver Cleaver, but, as it stands THAT is the way many stores expect their staff to dress.) Since it is the company who hires the people to do a specific job and since the company states what is required to be able to perform the job AND as the people who work for them accept the terms of employment, this IS fair and just and acceptable. No cohersion, per sé, just people who need money willing to do what is required to earn it.
If someone didn't like the terms of employment, they are free to shop around or become and entrepeneur and work for themself (though good luck to such a person who feels these dress codes are too strict and yet wants to sell their wares/services directly to the public; they'd soon start creating their own dress code. (I do acknowledge taht certain genres of stores and services expect a certain unorthodoxy in their dress codes - tattoo parlours, sword shops, skate board shops, and RPG stores come to mind).
I understand your frustration and I, too, rail against unreasoned prejudice and double-standards. We have the choice to take it or leave it.
Shawn (Mr. Crow)
the option to quit or avoid to simply not apply to work for a company
OOPS double negative!
should read:
the option to quit or to simply not apply to work for a company
Hi Grant, This is all certainly well written, and I must say that I think you have a love for contradiction and paradox which shows itself in this piece. I like your argument about Santa and much of what you've said. And, it's so true that things aren't as bad as they could be, but they aren't near as good either.
I do have a problem however listening to those of us in North America or Europe sitting at a computer typing who think they know hardship or are slaves to a job or a system of economics or some such. To get a perspective on things, think about those people out in a field you drive by picking bell peppers and tomatoes in the sun all day for minimum wage. Or, to get a real perspective on what slavery was, read Harriet Jacob's or Frederick Douglass's captivity narratives and what they went through. And to have food at all to eat is more than what a good portion of those in the world have who are literally starving and don't even have the option of ramen noodles. Now, of course, this is all based on perspective.
Perspective then leads one to wonder what the limits of tolerance are. Sure, I have no problem with someone who chooses to have numerous tattoos and piercings and hair colors that aren't naturally occuring in the natural world. But, how does one draw a line between what is professional and what is not without making it subjective? This one might think long hair for a man is extreme, while the one who has long hair thinks it's OK but that green and blue hair is unprofessional. As much as I hate rules that restrict someone's personal expression, I can't help but wonder what the limit is and if there should or shouldn't be a limit at all from the perspective of an employer. It's as if arguing the point of it opens up more questions than get answered if one tries to think in multiple directions. I even want to say that the freedom for the employer to say no to green hair would be OK, but then it's that very line of thinking that waylayed my own mane last year. We may think we want to love everyone and everything can be all peaches and cream, but who can love a serial killer? I for one am not tolerant of crime and criminals. But, that's a whole other point.
Then I think that if I were to get some items checked out at a store by a person who an employer might regard as possessing these "extreme" features, what reaction would I have. I know I'd have one. Would it be distasteful to me or not? I don't know. And here I am, with the quintessential "anything goes" outlook. Which leads to this. Most people aren't in favor of "anything goes." A good portion of people find themselves having rather rigid ideas that don't respond well to being bent. So, in an economic system and popular culture that caters to the lowest prejudice and basest emotion rather than the highest reason and valor, it all begins to make sense. the employer then reasons (perhaps speciously) that the most conservative approach to regulating their employes makes the most economic sense since they by their unadmitted trepidity are nursing the notion that difference is bad.
Further, since any economic system is based on survival, survival is the key. And sadly, oftentimes, this means greed or the setting aside of what's right for what's profitable. And this is not just an economic phenomenon. The basis of it is the at the core of the human instinct to get and have and hoard which makes sense in a hunting and gathering culture where food and resources are scarce. But, in a post-modern culture when resources (food, energy, goods and services) are seemingly abundant for those of us who have computer to type at, the instinct still prevails. As long is that is so, the baggage that goes along with it finds itself manifesting through rules and regulations for everything. And while some will argue that rules and laws are social glue, they are after a fashion, but the rules and laws are a product of instinctual man and not always a product of higher truths and seriousnesses. So, as objective as one might like to think rules, and as they're especially objective to the one who drafted them, they're more subjective in cases the drafter never thought of - which bring me back where I began.
I hope you do well on the new job, and am happy that your hair is not a problem, but try to think about the limits of tolerance and what that means. I'm not sure either.
Bragi hits on several points well, which can be summed up, "There have to be SOME standards." If you're an employee and your appearance is truly driving off more customers than some other apppearances would, then your employer is rightfully going to have a problem with your looks. If you are a student and your appearance is going to distract other students from learning more than some other appearances would, then the school administration is rightfully going to have a problem with your looks.
What is wrong is where employers or administrators overreact and perceive as a problem an appearance that in reality is not one.
Societies are always evolving with what they perceive to be problematical, and rules to remain fair have to shift with current expectations. Sometimes expectations on the ground are not what might be seen by the forward-thinking as "politically correct" nor may they be in line with what discrimination is even legal, but no law can make people shop in a store or concentrate in a classroom if their socialization is not equipped to comfortably accept what they see. Companies have to make a profit and schools have to produce graduates in order to survive. Survival needs are going to trump what is perceived as right and even what is legal.
One way to not become a distraction is to minimize the ways you are seen as different. It's not fair, but a white kid can dress grungy and just be seen as expressing a fashion style. A black kid can dress that same way and be seen as a criminal. Longhairs as a minority often face the same situation I just described for black kids.
Over the years I've noticed that society will often extend to you one way of being different. If you have long hair, maybe you need to forgo wild tats, faded clothes, piercings, etc.
It's hard for an employer to say that black guys or longhaired guys have to dress neater than white guys of course, so they just tighten the rules point by point to the point that all variations are covered. In the process they unnecessarily catch some guys who look perfectly acceptable, of course, and this is not fair to them. Since the public is subjective with the evaluation of each individual, to be fair to the wide variation in individual looks and expression that is seen, employers need to be subjective, but they want to avoid any legal quagmire, so they just overreact. "If some people would look unacceptable with long hair, just ban long hair altogether," is what they will think.
It is a rare place where long hair alone, on someone otherwise very mainstream in looks, is going to turn anyone off. Therefore, discrimination on the basis of long hair alone is seldom justified for reason of adverse reactions. The only tack one can take if found in a place overreacting to long hair is to point out that you will present yourself in a way that you look very mainstream and that your long hair will not be a distraction in any way. One can mention that having long hair is the only way that you will look any different than anyone else does, and that the public is generally very accepting of people who only have one way that they look different, if they otherwise look very mainstream.
Bill
I'd like to share a real-life example that may help illustrate Bill's & Bragi's comments (as well as support the comments from others who mentioned similar viewpoints)...
I used to work at a large SF nursing home, in their Garden Dept. Every day we could get a free employee lunch at their cafeteria, where working behind the line, was a young college graduate with bright fucshia-colored hair and HUGE holes in his ear lobes. Then he got some new peircings on his face and body. No problem. Then he added some wild new tatoos. Again, no problem. And then he got his lower lip pierced, --- which became a BIG problem... "May I help you?", he would ask behind the counter, standing ready to serve up your food, --- and then he'd slurp up his own saliva that was drooling and dripping off his most recent lip piercing. YUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Apparently there were so many complaints against how gross this guy was looking, and how unsanitary it was that his lower lip piercing was causing this kid to drool and slurp so much that he was finally told to take the face piercings out, "or get another job!"
End of story. I don't think I need to make any further point here!
- Ken (sssllurrrrrrp!!!)
Nice example there. I wonder though, did he get rid of the piercing or get fired?
there must have been something wrong with his piercing. i've had a ring in my lip for over four years, and i've never had to slurp up my spit when talking to somone. or spilled on myself while drinking from a glass. or had it affect my speech. my employer has never been bothered by it, nor have any of my customers. i guess i'm lucky. poor guy... he shoulda checked out his body art tech a little better. :)
peace,
nic (with a completely dry chin)
Yeah, I know what suffering is. Is it truly fair to say that my suffering is worthless because of the fact that some people are sadistically torn apart by violent psychopaths? I know I could be tortured to the point of losing any form of sentience, but like I said, people shouldn't have to suffer at all. Of course, people will always have to suffer, because we will never have a perfect world. It's something most people don't want.
Still, every friend I know has had it better off than I have. Some have never lived in less than a two story house, have never even seen an apartment before they met me, and some have no grasp on the concept of financial hardship, as they are born with rich parents. I can't help but be slightly envious of the fact that some of them have their own room, some of them have food to eat every day, some have never been beaten by their parents.
Then again, if I was half as spoiled as they are, I'd be able to suffer a lot more. When I was a kid, my parents thought I was a horrible kid and entertainment was to blame, so they took everything out of my room except for a mattress, and I'd often be locked away in there when relatives came, like some sort of dark and shameful secret. I spent about two years like that, until they realized it had absolutely no effect on me whatsoever. For years, I ended up being thirsty for vengeance, extremely quiet and generally uninterested in human interaction, but over the years I learned to become peaceful and almost entirely nonviolent, and I think I probably would've ended up like every other drug addict teenager if I didn't experience firsthand that the world doesn't revolve around me and that I can assume I'm unwanted trash unless somebody says otherwise.
That experience though, in retrospect was probably the best time in my life. I didn't need to worry about anything or think at all. Everything was dark and I was alone, so I created my own world and my own friends in my mind, and when I couldn't stand it anymore, I found myself more and more drifting away from reality and found a utopia in my own thoughts. Unfortunately though, all that stuff is still in my head, and it conflicts with reality, making me wish I never had to be awake.
Yeah, I know there's people a lot worse off than me, but I think this country needs to stop trying to depict the world as being perfect and full of order. I'm psychologically tormented, and I think it's the reason I have so much trouble dealing with things. Maybe my point of view is wrong, hell, I might even be insane, but quite frankly I don't care. Even if humans make peace, the sun is going to die if they manage to go that far without wiping themselves out, and in the long run I'll be gone soon enough anyway.
"In the long run, we're all dead" - Keynes
Sorry, Economics is my favorite subject, I had too.
Sounds like you were worse off than me psychologically. My parents never did those kinds of things to me, but i'm naturally a-social anyway. At least, in many cases.
I suppose I was most lucky with my parents, in that they let me think and do as I please (within reason). I mean, I never had any will to drink alcohol, always stayed away from any drugs, so I guess they raised me well. Same way they have no problem with my hair, although my dad still asks me every month or so when i'll be getting a haircut, to which I answer "Never!" :P
Hi again, I never meant to diminish the importance of the feelings surrounding your own experiences or start a contest for "shittiest childhood experiences." What I did mean to do was give you examples implicitly that I myself use to reset myself when I start feeling sorry for myself.
I identify with lots you've said and have no arguments to forward.
You're rather talented as a writer; perhaps this might ought to be your focus for some of this energy and feeling. Good luck.
Until the sun goes supernova, yours truly,
Bragi
Hey Grant,
You're a good writer. I feel your angst. I'm glad to be part of your audience.
But since this IS a long hair board, I just wanted to point out that, in my opinion hair is not the same as things like tats, piercings, or dyed hair. The latter are things that you put on your body as means of expression, whereas hair is something that grows naturally from your body. I think that to restrict hair or beard lengths is much more limiting of freedom than restricting other adornments, since your hair is a part of your body.
Don't mix long hair/beards in with other forms of bodily adornment, under the argument that they are all forms of self-expression. I think it weakens the argument in favor of allowing long hair/beards.
Sunflower
These are great arguments from the standpoint of fairness or philosophy, but the very bottom line in these situations is simply, "What will be accepted by others there?" This is not always going to give a fair answer, or even a legal one. Merely being a male is going to be too far out in left field if you want to wait tables at Hooters.
Some "differences" are minor. Consider them one strike against you. Some are moderate. Consider them two. Some are deal-killers. Consider them three. Three strikes and you're out.
In most situations, long hair on a man is one strike at most. It may often be zero strikes on a female. This means that a female may get by with long hair and two other minor quirks, where you may get by with only one. Is this sex discrimination? Probably, but if it affects the boss's financial bottom line, that decision will BE the bottom line.
We each only have so many cards to play. "Getting by" in society involves sensing how many cards we have and then playing the ones that mean the most to us. If long hair means a lot, then we may have to give up some other quirkiness so we look more mainstream.
As I said in another post in this thread, long hair is in very few settings REALLY going to affect the boss's bottom line when it comes to customer reaction, so long as long hair is not combined with too much else that is unique.
The problem is that some outfits are too lazy or socially inept to look at the big picture with people, something we do every time we meet someone new, so it's not rocket science. They just use a shotgun approach, wiping out anyone who garners even one strike when it comes to being different. Meanwhile, none of their clients will care one hoot if you are different in only one minor (one-strike) way like "having long hair".
The only way to win such people over is convince them that you are so mainstream looking that their clients are really not going to care at all about your long hair, and that they will be missing out on a financial opportunity if they don't hire you.
Bill
I agree, it's very depressing, especially in this day and age.
I can so relate right now as I'm scheduled for a second interview this evening at a store with a hair above the collar no beard policy. It will boil down to if they want my experience (23years)
then they will have to make an exception or I will graciously decline their offer. This chain is rumored to be buying the store I'm currently working in some time next year, so the other purpose is to find out if they will indeed bend their policy so I can make future plans if they wont.
You write a good piece I enjoyed reading it.
Take care
Kevin
what I dont understand is why having long hair or having a beard is a problem
I agree with most of what you say. In the 21st century we should be able to rise above petty restrictions like these. As long as someone is reasonably clean, there really should be no problem if they want to come to work in a tutu with pink hair and a safety pin through their nose. I would shop in a store that employed that person, maybe even in preference to going somewhere else. I don't like conformity and it puzzles me why anyone would, because it's so boring. I would view an unconventional employee in a store as an attraction, and I'm betting there are a lot more people who feel the same way. Maybe it's an attraction in the sense of a fairground attraction, but it will get me into the store more effectively than double coupons.
I doubt that dress codes have much to do with the bottom line. I think they have much more to do with power. Is it the little privately owned stores that have tight dress codes? No. The owners of small stores have the most to lose if the clientele walk, but they often have no codes whatsoever. It's the mega corporations that have tight dress codes, often for staff that have no client contact. It's all about exercising power over other people. Some tiny minded middle manager who thinks they are a big man because they can tell the workers what to wear and how many inches of hair they can grow.
It is tempting to think that social progress will be smooth and steady and everything will always get better, but in reality there are fits and starts and setbacks. In the 70s there were more men with long hair than short, although when we look back we see that most of them only had sort of longish hair, but the result was that discrimination against long hair was almost non-existent. Ten years later discrimination had returned in full force. Once the average guy had decided to get a short cut it was safe for the bad guys to discriminate again, because it turned out that the only thing stopping them was a glut of relatively long haired guys on the job market.
I remain optimistic, though. If you take the really long view, things have got better.