new thread
Greetings everyone,
it's been quite a while, hasn't it? For those who remember me, never fear; my hair is as long as ever. However, I'm almost certain it hit terminal length some time ago, so my dream of waist-length and beyond shall likely remain that--a dream. Nevertheless, that's hardly the point of this post. (In case anyone is curious, I've been away primarily because of college and research projects, and my final semester is about to begin again, so....)
While I was an active member here, I noticed many a discussion on masculinity/femininity and long hair. While some members thought hair was just a human trait, many seemed to push for it being masculine, claiming that guys looked "pretty masculine" (ironic word choice in western society, lol) and that since "tough" guys have had or do have long hair--bikers, metalheads, long-dead warriors--long hair is, therefore, masculine. I myself have likely said something to this effect before.
But I've thought for a long time that this view is not only wrong but potentially dangerous, and I'm posting my thoughts because of that. In a few weeks, my post will be off the page, but I hope it at least spurs some discussion, whether or not you agree with me.
Okay. Firstly, I claim that hair, whether long or short, at any period in history, is neither masculine nor feminine, but human. The only way it could be masculine is if the male's hair differed consistently from the female's in some way, but since the only significant difference appears to be a greater genetic predisposition to balding (MPB), I can conclude that male and female hair are "equal"--that is, human, neither masculine nor feminine. Therefore, to call someone masculine because of either long or short hair is fundamentally absurd and is the product of traditions that uphold different hair lengths for the sexes, not the product of an innate difference between the sexes' hair.
Many people know this, actually, but still point to historical figures and traditions and claim that "because so-and-so had long hair, it's masculine." But given the above equality of hair between males and females, this is absurd.
Semi-related example--the kilt. The kilt, like long hair, has long been seen as for one sex. Since the term "skirt" has long been used to describe "women's clothing," educated men will go as far as to claim that a kilt is not a skirt and even to attack people who disagree. But the facts are simple. Men wore the kilt in the past, and (presumably) not women; therefore, today, men say it is a male garment. But how can a garment that can fit the female body as well as the male's be a male garment? Clothing can ONLY be masculine if it can ONLY fit the male body, such as a male condom (if one considers that clothing). A bra, similarly, is feminine because it fits a body part the male does not possess in anywhere the degree the female does (we're flat-breasted folk). However, tight jeans and skirts can fit a male's body, just as baggy trousers and tuxedos can fit a woman's. The shape of male and female bodies is not exactly the same; however, it is not different enough to warrant the vast division in clothing western society has created.
So, just because something was done in the past does not mean it is a divine law. This kind of logic is all too similar to saying because more females had long hair in the past, it is a feminine thing, and few, if any, males should be allowed to have long hair. Just as many clothes are inherently sexless, so is long hair. It is the other traits, primarily the genitalia, that determine sex. Some races of males lack facial hair, like some Native Americans and some Asians; but their genitalia will still label them as males. Intersexed and trannsexual folks present a special problem that is ultimately unrelated to long hair; if anything, they support the view that hair is sexless.
Long story short--I don't advise getting into arguments over whether or not hair is masculine or feminine. The fact that it can and does grow equally on the majority of male and female scalps is "general" biological proof of this. It's tiresome for me to see men waste time researching warriors and trying to justify everything they do by showing a male that did it in the past. It was done in the past, yes; so what? This is the present. You don't need to hold onto historical models for what you do; if you do, you are no more free than those who rigidly cut their hair short and trendy, for they're simply following a "more recent" historical trend. Don't let history control what you do; try to do that yourself. If you dislike him, please don't flame me for something petty, but Sartre did say "we are condemned to be free"; religious views aside, can you really disagree?
peace
I forgot to mention this--when one is using a historical source as a claim for or against long hair, contradiction is almost inevibitable unless one is highly specific in historical reference, and if one is so specific, it often negates the point that such-and-such can apply to the present.
For instance, here is an example of contradiction by being too vague. If one says long hair was historically masculine, one is immediately contradicted by all the short-haired males of the past, and the argument is undermined. If one is more specific ("the Vikings had long hair"; "the Manchu queue was a long braid," etc.), one is correct about that specific time, but in so specific a time, how much relevance can be claimed for the present situation? In other words, what was fine for the Vikings was fine for them, ages ago--what of us today? So, in both cases, historical justification is problematic. Furthermore, historical justification sometimes takes the form of imitation, and is imitation really all you're after? Naturally, all we can do is imitate and combine from our experiences, but that is besides the point.
Finally, this imitation is more often than not in the form of a joke. I.e., Joe dresses up as a Celtic warrior with a big dumb grin on his face, and people laugh and/or compliment/joke about his getup, but it is ultimately not taken seriously enough to really make a point. The male has largely become a joke today, and where he is not a joke, he is condemned. If a male were to wear a wig as a joking reference to, say, Slash, fine; but if he were seriously into the wig, people might react violently to him. This in turn spurs the quest for historical justifaction, and so forth, in a more-or-less unchanging cycle.
The worst, to me, is when a guy asks a girl or a group of girls if "girls" like long hair, and takes the opinion of one or a few as indicative of the entire female sex. I've seen this both in real life and on this board, and it's an absurdity that needs to be severely stamped out.
"Greetings and salutations" back to you
Call me curious, then. What are you studying?
I'll agree with you completely on this one.
You are correct that either gender *can* wear a kilt, or most other articles of clothing for that matter. However, some of this is determined by the generally accepted definitions of the terminology of clothing. When a man wears a garment that covers the upper body and buttons up the front, we generally call it a shirt. When a woman wears a similar garment, it is generally called a blouse. As you noted, kilts were historically worn by men, and skirts by women. While they are similar garments (just how similar depends on what type of kilt you want to compare), the same concept of terminology applies. Another similar point would be that men wear cologne, while women wear perfume. Both are cosmetic fragrances, so why two different names? Because that's the terminology that has developed.
Jim
I'm an English major, specializing in creative writing. I also plan to study philosophy; so far, I've more or less tutored myself.
Yes, you are right about terminology developing. But the danger of this is that a frightening number of people take terminology for undeniable fact. "Cologne IS for men; perfume IS for women; guys wearing perfume are gay" and so forth. One must not forget that just because we are used to terming things male or female does not MAKE them "male" or "female." Of course, another danger is those extremists who want to remove labels altogether, forgetting that it is by labeling that we determine at least basic differences.
Also, I disagree that a kilt is "similar" to a skirt; I believe it IS a skirt. The traditional wrap-around one is equivalent to a wrap-around skirt; the modern Utilikilt is definitely a skirt.
As I noted previously, just how similar depends on what type of kilt. The older (original) style of kilt, also known as the great kilt or belted plaid, is more closely related to the roman toga than any modern garment, including skirts. More modern kilts (and I'm referring to traditional Scottish kilts, not the utilikilt) are 'similar' to skirts, but by definition are a very particular style (both in cut and fabric), whereas a skirt can be of a wide variety of styles.
Words are our tools to define what we see and describe them to others. We define the words, the words should not define us. On the other hand, if we stretch a word too far beyond its original definition, we make them useless for their intended purpose. So if I see a guy in a knee-length wraparound garment made of plaid, I'll call it a kilt. If I see a girl in a 'similar' garment, I'd call it a skirt [grin]
Hi Fallen Angels,
I definitely remember you and am glad to see your post after such a long hiatus. I can also see what a good education you have obtained over the past few years. It screams out at me in every sentence and word choice, in your refined logic, and in your eloquence.
I like the point you made about long hair being neither feminine or masculine. Well taken. I think that some of us have in the past fallen into certain arguments adopting historical models as justification("William Wallace had long hair, in a movie starring Mel Gibson, so I can too, as a male, in a world that generally spurns long hair on men.") because the arguments and resistance that many men face on a day to day basis almost require them to adopt less than perfectly rational and reasonable defenses on the spur of the moment, in some instances. I myself did some of the research on ancient warriors as much for that reason as anyone. On the Hittites and the Spartans especially, if you were to search the archive, you would find several posts attributed to my name speaking of these things. Yet I didn't see it as a defense of long hair as something innately masculine. I see the hair as more of a thing that both sexes can easily grow, but my purpose was never to claim that long hair was masculine, but that great men in the past had grown long hair; that is -- that males have just as much as a historical precedent to enjoy their biological predilection for long hair as women. That is a fine distincition and differentiation between the point of your post, as I understood it. You are correct in saying that long hair is neither masculine or feminine, but to point to examples is the easiest way to mount a defense. Also, to use historical example to illustrate various ways of living is useful.
Western gender classifications are terribly stilted and odd the more one thinks about it, and I can appreciate your thoughts on that subject. As far as I am concerned, bifurcated trousers ought to be the province of females as they are much better suited for wearing such things.
However, I would argue that historical precedent and tradition are important in their own right, as long as slavish devotion is not the modus operandi, but reasonable refinement of the better aspects of the past. We are a product of all our shared pasts as much as we may not like to acknowledge it. You may hate the Romans for their militaristic ways or the any of the ancients for maintaining slavery and supressing human rights. We may abhor the sins of our collective fathers. Yet even every word that I am typing and you are conceptualizing as you might read this has a history thousands of years old. Each word and utterance are products of our forebears, and each sounds and means the thing it does because of the past usage and pronunciation. And, I think to be mindful of this is extremely important in developing a view of the world. History and its precedents are important because what they our ancestors were, we are. We cannot escape this fact. Because things were done a certain way in the past is very reason that we do them the way we do them today, in the present. Law, language, art, love, poetry, prose, humanity -- these are all historically-based precedents. To know where you must go, you must know whence you came.
Sartre's comment, "we are condemned to be free," I am not sure of. I wonder what it is that one wants to be free of. This can get troublesome if one really imagines what it truly means to be free of any given thing. His statement has two passives in it -- in the main clause and the infinitive. Who is the agent of the main clause? Who is doing the condemning? This makes me think that freedom might be a sentence or a burden or a punishment rather than a pleasure or benefit. The freer one is, the greater the responsibility one has. We have to ask ourselves how much responsibility we want. And where does freedom end and chaos begin? Where do we draw the line?
You raise lots of good questions, and thanks for the post.
I want to see some current pictures soon.
Thanks,
Peace and good will,
Matt B.
Thank you! I was hoping to see you again (though "Bragi" appears to be no more? Incidentally, I've meant to change my name for some time, but for my hands being in a devil's workshop.)
Yes, and Goethe comes to mind: "He who cannot draw on three thousand years is living from hand to mouth." My point was not that history is utterly unimportant, but that, as you pointed out, it should not be slavishly binding. Naturally, it is easier to "justify" long hair on men to a short-hair-preferring society by being able to cite numerous historical precedents. However, when we start living as though we can be no more than these precedents, when we must justify to ourselves something that does not need self-justification, we have a problem. And I have lived like this. I have said that I can have my hair because so-and-so had it in the past, and I actually felt lucky that history had worked out in my favor! Had history not had men with long hair, would there thus be no way for men to have long hair in the present? It is this absurd extreme question that is the crux of my argument, for too many of us do live like this. We depend on the past and the likely coincidental. We must learn from them and decide for ourselves, creating our own reasons for our hair--"I like it" is enough--not saying that I "can only" have it because warriors etc. did. Obvious? But you would be surprised at how mystifying this is to all too many.
Sartre claimed that it was indeed a burden to be as "free" as we are. We were not asked to have this freedom; we simply were condemned by our own lack of any specific purpose or "essence" in life to be free. In other words, he believed there was no inherent meaning in life, no meaning that could be valid for all humans; rather, we are free to create our own meanings. The condemnation comes from a lack of choice in this matter; a fetus, after all, doesn't vote for or against it. Also, as Sartre was an atheist, he didn't ascribe this condemnation to any deity, which creates a bit of a weakness in his argument. But anyhow, this vast liberty--to stab oneself in the hand, to jump off a cliff, to run nude through Michigan--is astonishing to comprehend, so it is indeed a burden. Laws, after all, are ways to restrict freedom, and for laws to exist, such freedom must therefore possibly exist. Chaos, or, better, anarchy seems a likely result, you're right; but if you think about it, no organism can survive in chaos. All successful organisms follow some degree of restriction--canines have the alpha male, worker ants support the queen, etc. If there was true madness, any would just kill any, and none could survive. So, despite our freedom, even if we descend to a primitive state of "savagery," we will not likely be in chaos.
Nothing new to see, but that just may happen.
Thanks for the explanation and context of Sartre's comment. I do not know philsophy, so I learned something today. I started posting with my own name since everyone knew it anyway.
I think I get the main point of your argument. But, always the "but" or the "however," for many, whatever it is they do, whether they may grow long hair, explore their own narrow paths, do their own unique thing -- "I like it" is not enough of an argument to justify one's behavior in the eyes of the majority (the world at large) out there to whom one oftentimes feels that one must justify himself. A better term might be validation or even verification, although verification implies to make a thing true, and then what truth is opens up a whole new realm of debate. "I like it" should and ought to be enough, but how often is this really the case? As much as we strive not to fall victim to it, we humans have our nature which craves acceptance and recognition and requires work and explanations on a deeper level than a wish or a whim. The point you make is obvious, but it is obfuscated by what actually happens and is "required" for one to function in his own realm. The long haired warrior can validate my long hair, but I cannot only have it because of him. I have it because I like it, foremost, but I justify it to the world, if pressed, by whatever resource is most convincing. This ties back to survival; I can think of lots of things I have to do that aren't really essential for reaching certain outcomes, but I have to do them because the society I live in is set up that way. I have to complete my degree because without those letters behind my name, I can't do the things I want and I have no street cred. When one desires the company of a lady, one must observe the courting rituals. Etc, etc. The absurd question you mention is everywhere, underlying everything. Think of the concept of the reductio ad absurdum. When you begin to peel away the layers of any ritual or customary behavior, it becomes more and more mysterious, illogical, and based upon illimitable senselessness. Research Christmas; that will blow your mind. I get your argument, for it lies at the crossroads of understanding, yet is frightening, scaring away many. The concept has the ultimate effect of unnerving and shattering assumptions, and these are security blankets, an avoidance of chaos and uncertainty.
This is always the issue. We live in societies to avoid chaos, and as societies grow more complex, we necessarily fall into more rituals, and rituals soon melt into laws for those who are weak, stupid, scared, want convenience, or simply are so accustomed to them that they forget that they are not, in fact, LAWS. But ironically, to survive, we need to conform to some degree. Even the nonconformists pay taxes. True nonconformity is truly scary, for, as you say, it brings up things about ourselves we may not want to believe.
But then, I don't totally agree with you about human nature, per se, as I never feel I can say anything is truly inherent or not. We do seem to have desires--Schopenhauer's lust to survive, Darwin's survival of the fittest (as much as we can attribute this to him), Nietzsche's will to power, whereby we desire power more than life itself--desire, I suppose, is our nature, and the nature of these desires is up for grabs.
Hi fallen_angels. I am fairly new to the board, starting in February, and I had not seen you yet. I saw your avatar, and your hair have really nice curls. I understand that having really curly hair means the length of your hair ends up getting incorporated into the curls and it makes your hair appear much shorter.
Nevertheless, I am mainly a male guy. I stay away from make-up, lipstick (although I experimented with such when I was a very little child), dresses, and such. I am not interested in pretty much everything that girls are interested in (other than pink LEGO sets).
As for my hair, I regularly see men with long hair, and not just at my work place. When I was little, pretty much only women wore their hair long, and I get really stimulated when I end up seeing a man with long hair. Today, long-haired men are all over the place, at least in the Seattle area. That inspired me into growing out my hair.
My dad, on the other hand, took it for granted that all men wear their hair short. My dad is kind of old school. My dad made me get an unwanted trim for my cousin's wedding. I personally find it absurd that long hair is purely a woman thing (as so my dad thinks). If I do wear a kilt, my dad would think I am wearing a skirt, and tell me to take it off. I don't see men wearing kilts (except at the Scottish festival). Because of all of that (and the fact he easily get angered) means I tend to not have as much fun as I would when I go see him.
Regardless
Thanks, man. It's true--when I stretch my hair out, it's almost two times longer than it looks. But the maintenance for curls really sucks if you're not dedicated to it.
Ah, but this is still part of the issue. What makes you a "male" guy? Makeup and dresses are not INHERENTLY female things. Not wearing them does not make you any less--or more--of a male. As both males and females can wear them, they cannot be put into a box for one sex alone. And robes, etc. which you might see a man wearing and think little of are dresses, like any other. Being male and female comes down to what genitalia you have, because the other factors are too prone to exception. Toughness? But lots of males are not "tough." Deep voices? Exceptions again. Ultimately, the only constant is the sex organs. Those born with ambiguous genitalia cannot biologically be exactly male or female, though they may appear as one or the other. Basically, please don't assume that it is girlish to like pink LEGO sets, lol. You might be surprised to hear that pink was once considered a "manly" color. What is considered manly and feminine by society is continually changing, though our genitals remain the same.
First in this thread my comment would be that humans are innately driven to determine the sex of other humans they meet, and the drive is toward a black and white answer: "male" or "female". Despite a small number of people who may fall on the fence with their looks or with a desire that others would, a very large majority wants to tag us all as male or female. To comprehend the force of this drive, consider how less driven you are to determine the sex of any dog or lizard you might see. When we go where other humans are, as humans we are going to almost always find ourselves in the company of people who will either see us as male, see us as female, or be very uncomfortable with us if they cannot instantly sense the answer.
One place I worked we had an intersexed individual join the staff. They had a position where they left an hour earlier than everyone else. Within ten seconds of their leaving, everyone dropped their work, turned to those near themselves, and said, "Male or female!" All work stopped while this was discussed and eventually put to a vote, and we got a tie. EVERYONE in the office wanted the male-female question answered, and they wanted it answered NOW.
Now, as to what makes people come up with their answer to this pressing question...
There are strong indicators and weak ones. Strong ones would be sex organs, lots of facial hair, lots of chest hair, very large breasts, male pattern baldness, and voices at the far ends of the usual frequency range. Weak indicators are things like clothing styles and colors, length of scalp hair, and body characteristics that are middling.
If all of your observable strong indicators point in one direction, no amount or outlandishness of weak indicators will override them. No matter what you dress a guy like me in, and I will not look feminine. With a foot long thick beard, it would just come off as genderfuck (as far as I know there are no "clean" vs "dirty" words for this - that is the only word), in essence a clowning-around activity.
"Being male and female comes down to what genitalia you have", a quote from the italicized paragraph above, does not tell the whole story. When clothing is worn, sex organs often cannot be in the least bit seen or guessed at. Most guys on here could even lose them due to an accident and if wearing clothing would still come off as male to most observers with no question arising in their minds.
In the past two months I have been losing my sight due to cataracts (don't worry, folks, an operation to fix it is soon forthcoming!) but this has given me an interesting insight. Blurry as my vision is - I can't tell if people are looking at me anymore or whether their facial expressions change in my presence if we are in bright daylight - I have no problem at all immediately telling whether the shapes I see on the street are male or female. I can't see their faces and I certainly can't see their sex organs, but I can nevertheless tell from their shapes, the ways they move, and the hair and clothing they have alone. I saw one individual this morning from the back with a ponytail, for example, and I immediately knew he was male. As I passed him he turned his head in my direction and it was confirmed. He had a goatee.
Living in the Castro District, I see a lot of people who try to mess with their perceived sex and few really succeed. Some do though, and they are really good at it, but they appreciate the difference between the strong and weak indicators and they have all the strong ones either dealt with or concealed.
Culture is going to meet the needs of most people, and most people have an innate need to tell the sex of other people. Clothing and hair styles are bound to be used sometimes by giving them cultural significance in meeting this need. One matter we confront as longhaired men is that many cultures assign long hair as a weak indicator of "female". It is always a weak indicator, though, and it is easily overcome if you let strong indicators show. These can be any of the strong indicators; contrary to the implication in the italicized paragraph above, you do not have to unzip your pants.
Weak indicators such as long hair can also be overcome if all of the other weak indicators point in the other direction, but these are generally not matters of the body but matters of the culture where you are. What will dispel the notion of femininity of longhair in one culture may therefore not work in another.
Bill
I never stated that humans have no possible desire to determine the sex of a person; I'm not sure it's innate. I'm interested in figuring it out when faced with ambiguous people myself, but if I don't figure it out, it's no skin off my back. Perhaps I'm suppressing a desire; who can say for sure?
The fact that you say that people who "mess with their perceived sex" rarely succeed only underscores what I'm saying--that hair itself is neither masculine or femine, and neither is the majority of clothing. Obviously, if you have a full beard and male sex organs, the greatest likelihood is that you are male; but to use your language, I would claim that sex organs are the strongest of the strong indicators. There are different general postures and walks among males and females--your "middling" differences--as well as body shapes, but it always comes down to the sex organs. What could it matter whether or not you can see them? If you can't directly observe them, sure, you can rely on other indicators to make an educated guess. But the genitals will always provide the best of such guesses. Were they (including the penis, which I can only assume is classified both as a sex organ and not as one) lost, that would be an atypical situation, like an intersexed individual. This topic isn't about such situations.
I think this is veering off-topic, though. My original point was not about whether people look male or female in certain outfits, but what whether hair and clothing themselves can be considered strictly male or female. Both can be considered your weak indicators, though they are no more than indicators, and the strength of them, as you said, depends on culture.
I gave you my long answer and it maybe confused the topic, so here is my short answer:
The last item speaks to the reality that, while my long hair looks masculine on me, despite my large beard a pink tutu in our culture would not. [grin]
Bill
It's hair O.O why such a fuss? Just my opinion...but I think you're devoting far too much stress and time to a very simple issue...if you're happy with how you look and think of yourself, is there really a problem?
Good to see you back =)
<3
Tristram
lol, well, if everything thought like you, this topic would never have come up, believe me. In fact, this board might not even exist....
I agree =) but why let the opinions of others affect you so dramatically? Think about it this way...Because a group of people didn't like long hair, you devoted however long it took to write that post. Maybe they're accomplishing exactly what they're trying to. Again, not trying to poke at you...just an opinion. =)
Us intersexed folks usually identify with one gender, or another. Gender isn't just determined by external genitalia, but the internal gonads as well. You have people like actress Jamie Lee Curtis, biological female, genetric male. She's a female with XY chromosomes. We all start as female in the womb, but something goes wrong during certain stages of fetal development, such as the stage which triggers a genetic switch in XY males, to stop female production, and produce as a male instead. The genetic switch failed to activate in Ms Curtis, so you have a female biologically, even though she has male chromosomes.
Or you can have congenital conditions such as Klinefelters Syndrome, the most common form of intersexuality in males. These are males that have one, or more, extra X chromosomes. Biologically they are essentially male, but have feminine chacteristics due to the extra X chromosome. I have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasis (CAH), the most common intersexed condition in females. There are two types, Classic, which effects the baby in uturo, resulting in a infant born with ambiguous genitalia. These babies have XY chromosomes, but their hyperplastic adrenals produce excess androgens, causing the enlarged and sometimes fused labia, and enlarged clitoris, resulting in them looking like males at birth.
Non-Classic (Latent) Adrenal Hyperplasia effects the child as adolescence appears. This is what I have. The female developes secondary male characteristics. Some females are so hirsute, that they are capable of full beards. Hence, the bearded ladies seen in circuses of the past, most likely had some form of CAH. I take powerful anti-androgens (finasteride 5 mg, the same stuff guys take for benign prostatitis) to control the androgens that contribute towards hirsutism. Some CAH women develope apple shapes, and we usually are small-breasted. So, in baggy clothes, with hairy arms and noticeable facial hair, some would think the person is male, even though she has mostly female genitalia, and XX chromosomes.
I agree that head hair is neither inheritantly masculine, or feminine. It is a biological trait shared equally by both sexes. God and nature gave man and woman certain characteristics that differentiate them. Head hair is not one of them. As a devout Christian, I don't buy the view on long hair on men that many of my fellow Christians take. Very simply, if God did not intend for males to have long hair, he would simply have not given them the capacity to grow it long in the first place. Male, female, intersexed; we ALL have the capacity to grow long hair. Long hair can enhance a male's masculinity, as much as it can enhance the female's femininity. Hair is indeed sexless, but it certainly can contribute to one's sexuality.
I, for one, find both males and females to be far more sexier and attractive in appearance, when they have some length to their hair. Long hair, when properly cared for, is beautiful in itself, makes beautiful people even more so, and makes average people more attractive. It can even make unattractive people appear better, than they did without. It can hide flaws, or draw ones attention away from them. No one needs any justification for growing it, ther than that God/Nature make it possible.