new thread
I don't get it. I'm sitting here watching Charmed and here is good Wyatt(sp?) with short hair who is transformed into a long haired Wyatt with a goatee and an evil person as a result of "Demonic contact" with some Teddy Bear.
those who wear black leather, goth attire, or men with long hair are portrayed as evil on the show while those men with the short hair and preppy clothes are portrayed as "good".
I don't get it. are the producers anti long hair, anti goth and anti black leather?
what is the message they are sending when I've fought all my life trying to convince others that I'm not a "druggie", "criminal" or "psycho" because I want to wear my hair long?
anyone else have an idea why in this day in age this stereotype still perpetuates mainstream media?
For the same reason all stereotypes exist. This isn't malice, this is simple psychology, our natural survivial instincts at work. When we see someone or something, our brain needs to classify it into groups, so that we can decide on how to respond (fight, flight or calm down). Think of tribal times, or go even further back along our evolution. When we see a lion, we run, when we see a rabbit we calm down. It's just that nowadays humans live together with humans, rather than with nature, so our harmless and useful instinct grew into a manifestation of stereotypes.
We associate long hair on men these days with unkemptness. We assume a criminal, a druggie or a psycho would be those less inclined to look "clean". As to our definition of clean, this arises from two world wars in the last century (militarisation brings with it discipline and head shaving), the hippie movement didn't do much good for our image. Nor did the hordes of drug addicts who had unkempt hair.
There's a good reason to all of this, and I wouldn't over-attribute this to human malice. "Don't attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity". Let's face it, most people are slaves of their instincts, I can admit that I am to quite a few, though I'm fighting the harmful ones. Stereotyping is one of them, although I think i've almost or completely vanquished that one.
Hope this helps.
This is a fantastic analysis of how sterotypes arise. The only thing I wonder about, and perhaps you have an answer, is, for instance, in the 1800's, even in the American military (Civil War photos and such) you saw lots of beards and long hair - like General George Custer, Ulysses Grant (long beard), etc. Even in the Napoleonic era, British sailors had long hair. It's amazing how the shift occured. And some will say that lice infestations and such brought about shaved heads. And yet, lice has been around since long before the early twentieth century. The British navy successfully terrified the world for hundreds of years with long hair!
I'm not positive of the veracity of the argument, but I've heard that one of the reasons for the shift towards short hair was during the extensive use of conscription during the first World War ("The War to end all wars") as a way of identifying deserters in societies where hair was typically quite a bit longer than a "buzz cut".
That makes sense on some levels, though I can certainly see the "cleanliness argument". How nasty would mud-caked long hair get in a sodden trench setting? Perhaps it's a hybrid of the two...
And a switch to less dignified combat. By the time of the World Wars, a war was something to be won at many costs. And so if it took grabbing of hair or beard to beat the enemy, you did it. As compared to the professionalism of Civil War troops.
Thanks :)
I reckon there are many reasons. Firstly, throughout known history, armies that successfully conquered would either scalp their foes, as trophies, or would simply cut their long hair and beards. This was a way to humiliate these men in a society where longer hair was by far the most respected. Probably the best example of this is the roman empire, which tried to subjugate the Germanic peoples and consistently shaved the heads of their vanquished. Now flip that over, and you can see why humiliation and head shaving is prevalent today, except on your own soldiers. It's a method of discpline.
I will elaborate. Nowadays People join armies for 1-3 years on average. In Israel it's 3 years, Russia I think is reducing the 2 year term to 1 year. I'm not sure how long an average term is in the US army, but I doubt it's longer than 3 years, even though they recruit volunteer contractors. Now imagine having to fully discipline and train recruits who are only there for a short period of time. This is where head shaving comes in. Make everyone look the same, make everyone look younger and immature, strip them of their personality, and there you go, you have an effective method of accelerating discpline.
Many armies of the ancient world would pride above all else individual courage or chivalry. Today conformity is the far cheaper and easier way of winning wars.
Other reasons most certainly include trench warfare, which may have become the single biggest hair removal reason of the 20th century. It's not so much lice, as the fact that people would spend YEARS in trenches, without ever seeing civilization. Imagine maintaining anything more than a shaved head in that sort of environment. People were far more worried about their limbs freezing off or disease.
Now think of this: In the good old days of close-up melee fighting, having long hair and a beard, coupled with armour and a large axe or sword, would have been seriously intimidating. No doubt these were advantages. But today, most soldiers either wrap around some sort of cloth, covering most of their face, or use helmets with sunglasses. They fight using guns, where having the bigger gun, and not the bigger beard (or longer hair) was what intimidated, given that you were usually killed by someone who's face you never say anyway.
Also, I believe at one particular period of time, almost all the armies of Europe had it in fashion to wear ponytails. In fact, many armies had men with ponytails as a requirement. I believe this was in the 17th or 18th century.
Lastly, to link this back with psychology, I think long hair is a natural part of all human beings. It's how we're born, and no doubt this is not simply a physical feature, but also a psychological one. It's no wonder many people claim to have been "born" longhairs. Well, what if a lot of those shorthairs who discriminate want to have long hair too, but simply don't have the testicular fortitude to try it out? They'll always find some excuse, but the point is, I think they may feel uncomfortable, and even subconsciously envious when they see other men grow their hair out. This often manifests itself in the form of pressure to cut your hair, so that you are, at least subconsciously, as miserable as them.
That last one I'm not sure about, it's just an idea being processed in my head at the moment, so don't take it too seriously.
Hope this helps,
derf
Bragi,
In bed I should be and I am not fully competent to respond to your comment at this hour of nite, but I want to put a discussion on the table to be continued later.
I think you are not making a clear distinction between stereotypes and instincts. I think stereotypes are a cognitive category containing information we have been taught socially or culturally in the past, which is correctable on the basis of an open mind and new information.
For example, I used to think that all North Carolinians were smarter than any Georgians, but then I encountered Jesse Helms and Jimmie Carter, who should have been named James, and not one of those silly southern names like "Joe Bob." But who am I to criticize Ms. Lillian?
[Now granted I am speaking as a psychologist with limited education, so I am open to correction, he said modestly.]
I wish to argue that humans do not have "Instincts." The Brit. translators of St. Signmond, translated the German word "Trieb," as "instinct" when they should have translated it as "drive." To be sure, I have a sex drive, but not a sex instinct.
I think of "Instinct" as a connected series of behaviors set off by a stimulus, which continues through a process, and culminates with a specific outcome. Dogs do not need to be taught to hunt. Cats do not need to be taught to hunt, but by instinct bring the catch home, where Mamma cat teaches the kitten how to send the catch to the abatoir.
It is virtually impossible to interrupt this chain of connections between stimulus and outcome in animals. The unbreakable chain does not exist in humans.
Rather, in humans, we have reflexes, which determine an immediate response but which does not assure a continuation of the chain, because we have the capacity to interrupt the chain.
For example, most humans are reflexively afraid of spiders and snakes, me included. I think this is hard wired. Yet many humans are able to break this chain and be students of spiders and snakes, handle them, etc. etc. etc. Not me, for I have had no motivation to overcome my hard wired reflexive phobic response. This was built into our brains at the same time that dogs became afraid of the noise of earthquakes, big waterfalls, and thunder, because big noise = danger.
Though I do not play with spiders and snakes, I realize that mosketoes are far more dangerous than either, but early humanity had no idea of their danger, and there is no reflexive fear of these insects -- though we have learned to avoid them, protect ourselves against them, and swat them when we can.
My brain is shutting down for the evening, but before putting this out to the public forum I want to discuss the possibility of a more precise linguistic usage. Is this not what social scientists are about, even tho people make fun of us for our endeavor to define terms.
I know you will not, so I look forward to your response.
Caledonian
James Harrison
Asheville, NC
~"Don't attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity"~
OH, How I love that quote ! I have it hanging in my office right over the one that says:
~"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines"~
Obviously, I work for the government.....sigh...
WWT
Weasels can still become roadkill
Because long hair on women is considered to be "normal," natural, desirable and intentional...most
people will assume it is clean and well cared for.
But long hair on a man is relatively uncommon many people
attempt to find some "reason" for it.
If a man happens to completely neglect his grooming and hygiene, his hair and beard will grow long.
So many people will try to find any kind of explanation for it.
And in so doing they will attempt to look for additional "clue."
That's why a longhaired man needs to be especially careful
(that is if he cares at all about what other people think--and
most do) about how he looks and dresses. In fact, a "clean-cut" guy
may be able to get away with dirty fingernails (maybe he was doing a
dirty job and didn't have a chance to wash his hands) but a
longhaired man will not be given the same pass.
Many people--especially women--may not believe that a man washes his hair
as often as he should. That is, they may not think his hair is
as clean as theirs. Especially men with very long locks. There may be an element of truth in all of this--at least with some longhaired men.
So the big question is: will the general population ever think
differently about men who have long hair? Probably not.
Yes, the longhaired man should try to do his part to counter these popular misconceptions, but to expect the public at large
to have a positive image of guys with long hair may be a bit
too optimistic.
When people look at your hair, should you care what they think? about you? Of course you should. It is a part of you and of your
over all image. And most guys WILL care about what their family and friends think
whether or not they want to--especially the younger longhairs.
We all want to look our best--well, most of us do. And we need
to do this because the public will not be giving us too many
"free passes!"
In the end, long hair is a choice--with consequences!
And if you are a 'genuine' longhaired man, then your long hair should give you a feeling of pride and great inner joy.
It will be your constant companion in this life and in all the many circumstances you will encounter--both the good...and the bad...
Finally, as a longhaired man if you remember nothing else, remember this: HAPPINESS should always be
THE deciding factor whenever making major decisions about your hair. If you grow it "down to your butt" or beyond, and you are
NOT happy with it--then ask yourself WHY should you keep it at that length?
The length of one's hair is also a choice and you should not let others influence you into keeping your hair at a certain length because only YOU can know what makes you happy.
Growing your hair long is not a sin...
...but neither is cutting it.
I hope you all have a wonderful "Longhair Journey" and that you make it to goals. But most of all, I wish you...
... H A P P I N E S S !
Excellent post Luckskind, and I wish you happiness too :)
Thanks! It's all so true too. We need to be happy with our hair or what's the point!
This question was posted before a long time ago, right down to quoting the same episode of the same show!
Sorry guys, but I tend to think the answers you have got so far are either wrong or a little far off the point, i.e. having nothing to do with Hollywood.
I have pointed this out before, but I think that there is an entirely different explanation. Actors tend to have short hair, so that they can play typical short haired roles and then wear a wig if the role requires it (and generally avoid doing the latter unless they absolutely have to, i.e. if they are playing a role in a period where nobody had short hair).
Consequently, playing the evil alter ego of a character is achieved by the cheap tricks of putting on a wig, false beard, etc., and the people playing the full time bad guys tend to be less succesful actors, often including those who haven't cut off all their hair, who their agents regard as 'difficult' and thus are the ones they don't put forward for the good jobs such as playing the lead.
All of this is really bad, because it does perpetuate all the wrong stereotypes, but nothing will happen about it unless we organise and complain! Who here is willing to do that? I guess I am if someone else will sign a petition with me.
Good point elektros. I suppose my explanation completely glanced over what the OP was trying to find out.
What sort of petition are you thinking about? One asking Hollywood to stop portraying evil people as longhairs and with goatees? Well, the devil in Christian art has been portrayed with a goatee since the middle ages I believe, so I don't think that one's going. Long hair has been a recent taint, so we don't yet know if this one will last or not.
I would point out not all long hairs are portrayed as baddies:
1. Gil on Gilmore Girls (was in a rock band.)
2. Dubmledore in Harry Potter.
3. The Hobbits in Lord of the Rings.
Maybe you're just watching the wrong shows.