new thread
With the democrats controlling the White house and both houses of congress now's the time to try and get federal anti-discrimination legislation. Because federal laws trump local and state laws including local school boards. I'd say we have a 2 year time window before the republicans retake congress.
...will be the end of our society.
Not to mention that it's not the Federal government's responsibility to implement such laws. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending discrimination, but I do strongly stand for actually following the correct legal process and respecting the Federalist governmental structure in this country, without tarnishing it because of emotion-based knee-jerk reactions.
If you truly want to make an impact, then perhaps it'd be best to run for a spot on your local school board, where you can be a part of the decision-making. You'll have better success from the bully pulpit position, rather than as just a single voter.
Just my two cents (inflated to the value of one American dollar). =)
-James
Well said. I'm a long hair conservative and believe in being an individual and having self expression. Too many people want to clone us to be like everyone else, but that's not how we were created. Life would be pretty boring if we all fit one mold.
You stated it better than I could.
b.j.
Maybe. Fortunately, this sort of thing is mostly a red herring. The real question is: What level of grievance is worth the government's attention? I do think that there's an attitude that holds that it might be pushing it on our own behalf when there's still, say, racial or sex discrimination. Certainly legislating an end to those things wasn't "the death of our society"; in fact I'd say doing so greatly enriched it. Who's to say it's any different with such things as long hair?
Agreed on this.
Maybe that sounds nice as a first thought, but thinking it through I would have to say that's not a good idea.
Trying to equate long hair with racial and sexual discrimination (and by attempting to place it alongside those in federal discrimination law is exactly what that does) is, to be perfectly honest, silly, IMHO. They are nowhere near equitable.
Plus, I don't want the federal government pointing me out in public, demanding of all: "be nice to that dude, or I'll punish you!" :)
It worked for black folks now they have a black president and are a political power that can't be ignored.
It worked for women, President Obama the other day signed the equal pay act into law. This lady fought all the way to the Supreme court and lost but she didn't give up. She fought for and got an equal pay laws passed. All women and black's gains were made through federal action. I think it's time for civil rights for men. This one woman successfully sued a hotel chain for telling her to wear makeup but yet a man can be ordered to cut off his hair.
Any how I'm not enough of a control freak to run for political office. Any way my being one person on one school board wouldn't make any difference.
Oh yes and I would love to have the federal government on my side for a change backing me up. But I am willing to to be reasonable about the school dress code. If the boy has to tie up his hair while in school and/or wear a uniform I can compromise on that. I just think forcing a hair cut goes way to far. You can't take of a hair cut at the end of the day like you can a uniform or a hair tie.
While it is true that the Civil Rights Act of 1965 did equalize treatment of blacks, the problem is that it flies in the face of how our legal system is supposed to work. The Federal government is not meant to be the dictator of all social disagreements. In fact, you could argue that the racial violence and injustice would have been waned from existence over time. After all, there had already been blacks elected to Congress (from the South of all places!) for almost 100 years prior to the Civil Rights Act.
As for the woman suing the hotel chain, I think that's a bit of an overreaction to having to wear makeup. Instead of suing the company and forcing them to pay her tons of money (and thereby raising the prices of hotel rooms for all guests), perhaps she could have simply looked for another line of work. Who would want to work for a company that promotes discrimination anyways? =)
To answer your problem, I would suggest that action needs to be taken at the local level, rather than the Federal. Just an example as to how effective the Feds can be... What's the one city that Congress directly controls? Washington DC. What's the one city with the worst education system in the country? Washington DC. Coincidence? I think not. =)
-James
To add to that, Civil Rights laws protect people who can't exactly change to fit into the class that has all the rights. Minorities can't become white (Michael Jackson excluded, I won't even go there! LOL), women can't become men, disabled people, for the most part, can't become able-bodied. But people with long hair can cut it short. Like James, I can't see this ever happening at the federal level, as longhairs CAN cut their hair to gain acceptance. It's a form of discrimination to expect males with longhair to adapt to a short-haired world, but it doesn't equate to what blacks, women and disabled had to fight for. The longhair cuts his hair, discrimination barier is removed; the blacks, women, and disabled can't do that. Changing people's perceptions, and working to change laws at the local level, are more likely to work. The feds give state and local govts lots of leeway on creating laws based on community standards. Some, such as sodoly laws, are being changed at federal-level. Work on changing 'community standards' and you start gettiing people to loosen-up on schools and businesses having hair policies in place for males.
But women sue over having to wear makeup or pantyhose. Men should sue too. I'll bet they can but none has done it yet.
It seems that there is a backlash against long haired men.
Long haired men are not Ward Churchill or John Walker Lind. For years now they have been parading that footage of the american taliban on TV with his long hair.
I never addressed this issue, only added to what James wrote, to say how the protected class of anti-discrimination laws are typically currently viewed. People sue for anything, valid and frivolous. Sueing doesn't guarantee winning, nor does it guarantee laws change. But lawsuits can and do draw attention to a situation. You suggested going directly to the federal level, but without support in existence at the local and state levels, how do you propose to get federal attention? The higher courts will even tell you that you have to start at the lower courts first. Sue locally. If unsuccesfull, appeal to a higher court. Get grassroots support, push it to the federal court system if you continue to not get results. To get laws passed, you need special interests groups and a lot of support from voters. Small laws locally, lead to bigger laws, which translate into gradual elimination, community by community, state by state, until the federal level is convinced you (longhairs) are entitled to be part of the protected claas from discrimination. Miracles will not happen in the next 2 to 4 years. Expect decades. See my reply below.
If "inability to change" were really the test, then those laws would not protect religion, since religion can be changed.
Bill
But many religions, and their practitioners, will tell you that they CANNOT change, with detrimental consequences. I would guess in where religion has been added to the protected class, the recognition is in support of the beliefs of most religions, that you would be either damned or an outcast, if you changed religion. Religious freedom already guaranteed by the Constitution, would be violated if a person was compelled to change religions. There is no right to have long hair in the Constitution. Gay rights are still experiencing difficulty (prop 8 in California is an example), because of the argument over whether homosexuality is a choice or by nature. Those opposed claim that they choose the lifestyle/orientation, therefore they cannot not choose it. I think gay rights will be finalized when more realize/recognize that it is innate within the person.
Finally, all of the above began with movements that started at local levels. As they gained more support, special interest groups formed to lobby on their behalf. The rights of disabled persons were not fully realized until the ADA. Gays have gone a long way since Stonewall, but they have yet to be part of the protected class of anti-discrimination laws, though they should be. Stonewall sparked a lot of movements at the local level, across the nation. Some have succeded at the state level, federal level is still in it's infancy. Longhaired men don't have that type of organization/reppresentation. It is only because most states and communities within states, have abolished sodomy laws, that the issue is getting the response it is getting at the federal level. Longhaired men have to start just like the other now protected classes, by organizing locally, and working their way through the local and state legislations, and in putting the issue in the spotlight.
The govt recognized the rights of the disabled in the govt sector with the pass of the Rehabilitation Act in the 1970's. It took nearly two decades for the ADA to extend those rights everywhere. Unless there is a strong movement already in existence at the local and state levels, with longhairs achieving some change in legislation or in the courts, how would this ever get off the ground at the federal level? As I said, I don't see it happening. Years from now, perhaps even decades from now, when the overall climate supports the rights of longhaired men; there may be opportunities to get a nod from the feds. Unfortunately, unlike others in the protected class, the numbers dwindled, not grew. Some blame the punk movement. Others blame the wars and pro-military support, and corporate mentality.
Organize movements, educate people, point out prominant longhairs in history (like many of our founding fathers). Learn the court system and start using it. Lobby for laws both state and local. Form special interest groups. Write letters to the editor of publications, use the internet to garner support. When there is a movement to be recognized, the fes are likely to pay attention. Govt is unlikely to change anything without a visible grassroots support movement that grows so powerful as to affect legislation. The currently protected classes of the Civil Right Act, acheived that. Gay people have made considerable strides. Longhaired men haven't made inroads yet. The Democratis process means needing more who will support legislation. The "Hair Nazis" (as Paul calls them) currently have control, because the majority are indifferent to the plight of longhaired men facing discrimination. The trends need to be reversed, it starts in our communities. I do it by encouraging the longhairs I see. If I knew of any being discriminated, I would be supporting them.
I am in an area where schools and many business do not have "Hair Nazi" rules. I came from an area where at least the schools did not. I will be moving to another area (Newark, DE), and I will have too see what the laws are like there. That will be the apartment connected to the house my sister and her boyfriend acquired just over a year ago. They are renting a room to a friend of my Sis's boyfriend, who is a longhaired man my age. He got a job at the boyfriends employer, as a host. They only asked him to get a trim to tidy up (because he had been unemployed for a while, while living in Baltimore, MD, and hadn't maintained his hair. And they requested he tail it at work. Foodservice sector is mostly longhair friendly, as I observed from over 10 years working in it.
That, of course, is hogwash. The First Amendment gives individuals the right to change religion, and most religions are delighted to take in new converts. Religions themselves also change. Catholics used to not be able to eat meat on Friday, and Mormons used to think black people were evil and Mormons used to practice polygamy. Well, the bees, which Mormons are fascinated with, can't seem to give up polygamy, but humans can. Whether we should make them opens a can of a different kind of insects.
What courts have done who have deeply analyzed this situation is to recognize that the criteria is not "whether it CAN be changed" but rather, whether it is often a deep part of one's identity or unchangeable without great difficulty and there is substantial discrimination against it. This was the logic followed by the California Supreme Court in the 1970 Cox decision, and it was the logic followed by that court in the May 2007 marriage cases.
Judges are running wild in the streets with interpreting all this stuff, though, and many of the cases when looked at with others don't make coherent sense. This is more a result of "not many cases" than of anything else.
Bill
To the practitioners of most of the world's religions, it is not. It is a core central of their belief system. Many have sanctions for those who leave. They risk being shunned, damned, and other unpleasant consequences. I am guessing you are not a religious person, and therefore have no experience of this.
Doctrines and disciplines change all the time. This isn't about such changes, but about a person having to change a relgious persuasion because they could be discriminated against for staying in the one they are in. Those who do convert, do so because they no longer feel strongly bound by the doctrine that previously held them, and they feel that the new religion, or no religion, better suits their personal belief system. People who exhibit strong faith in a particular belief system, identify with that as much as they do their race oe ethnicity. In spite of doctrinal changes, most of the worlds major religions teach that it is a grave offense to abandon your faith for another or none. And many adherents accept that teaching fully.
And they aren't about to see lomghaired males in that light anytime soon. The number fitting that criteria is probably quite small. Those in the protected class have been seen to fit that. They are there because they CANNOT change, but currently longhaired men are not seen in the same light.
Which is why there needs to be more cases, but where are the longhairs willing and able to do this? They need to to get supporters and convince society that this is all about freedom of expression, and that while the haircut may be physically possible, it may effect the person in other ways.
Few here are saying religion or long hair should not be protected. The problem arises when people seek to impose their opinions on those subjects onto others.
Nor is anyone seriously asserting that religion or hair length cannot be changed. People do it all the time. The problem is that for some people changing is too psychologically painful to justify the perceived benefits in so doing.
When changing something is too painful AND when discrimination is common against it, that is when it is in the public interest that it be protected. When people encounter so many roadblocks that this prevents them from working and living their lives at their fullest potential, this harms society.
Bill
Sorry I couldn't resist either.
Actually women can more or less become men sort of and vice versa
Sorry I couldn't resist.
LOL
Kevin
LOL! Yes, but not for the purposes of a job, housing, etc. And not after a great deal of counseling, cost, etc. And such people often face their own discriminations, so while not technically gay, they ride on the coat-tails of the gay rights movement.
*** that is the usual argument of those who are on the privileged end of social inequity.
In fact, you could argue that the racial violence and injustice would have been waned from existence over time. After all, there had already been blacks elected to Congress (from the South of all places!) for almost 100 years prior to the Civil Rights Act.
***That was during the Southern Reconstruction period from 1867 to 1877. It was working good until President Rutherford B.Hayes pardoned the confederate leaders who went back and formed the ku klux klan who through violence and terrorism completely reversed those changes. Violence was not waning before the civil rights movement. The klan lost most of their money and property ie. power and influence in a wrongful death lawsuit in the 70s to the mother of one of their lynching victims.
*** That is ridiculous because she can take off the makeup after work. You can't take off a haircut.
***As far as I know DC has it's own municipal government like any other city. They are the ones who keep re-electing their crack smoking mayor
It would be nice to not have to worry about having to cut because of a job, school, etc. If women can have long hair, why not men?
But what about MY RIGHTS as an employer / manager, to establish a dress code that I find appropriate for my business? I think I should have full authority in saying, "I'll be willing to hire you with your skills, talents, etc., but our dress policy states that you should cut your hair sir."
Ya'll are always pounding on your chests exclaiming, "MY RIGHTS! MY FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION! ME ME ME ME ME!" But to hell with the rights of everyone else, especially privately owned companies. Sorry guys, long hair is a CHOICE. You CHOOSE to wear long hair.
I personally don't have ANYTHING against guys with long hair. They do have a right to look however they want. But as a manager, who must enforce policy on his employees, long hair won't be tolerated in my line of work. And if I make allowances for "JUST" hair length, the next thing that will come along, is someone wanting to have visible tatoos and body pearcings. And why stop there? Does enforcing someone to wear a blue dress shirt descriminate against someone who prefers to wear yellow?
And when I see posts like this: http://www.mlhh.org/archive/?243450 ....well, I'm not really enclined to hire someone like this who by default has no respect for "the man", when said "man" could potentially be myself, who this guy wants to "buck". Because of such unprofessional attitudes such as this, the image of a longhaired man also becomes unprofessional.
If we start passing federal laws against "longhair discrimination", then all that does is send a message out to other people who want to "buck the man", who feel that they can have or do whatever they want, by simply sueing their employers into submission.
You can wear your hair as long as you want. Like I said, I have no problem with it. But "the man" that I am says that I have the right to turn you down for employment based on the appearance that YOU CHOOSE to portray. As a manager and employer, there's only enough room in my company for one bucking bronco, and it's gonna be ME.
How is length of hair important to the way your business is run? How could something on my head affect you in anyway whatsoever? It is totally unfair to not hire someone based on their hair length. Appearance isn't everything my friend, I think employers should be worried about, oh I don't know, how about the important things: the employees work ethic, if they show up on time, if their driven individuals etc. not on petty things like the length of his hair.
To me, hair is part of the body. Long hair can be made neat to fit in with certain dress codes. Just because it's long, doesn't mean it's messy.
Here are a few things to consider: while the length of an employee's hair may seem universally unimportant, there are certain work environs in which it most certainly is not. If a job were with exposed machinery, with quick moving gears with would be almost criminal to allow someone with exposed long hair to work in such an environment. At the very least the hair would have to be tied or covered to ensure the workers' security, and in some instances it may just be smarter to simply have shorter hair to ensure safety.
Further, it is the employer's choice to have, and enforce a dress-code if they so choose. If you disagree with such a dress-code, of which one would only assume you would be informed in an interview, you are free to refuse the position or cut your hair. There are always other jobs out there, and there are going to be some where an employer will desire men to appear short haired and such. You may not feel it's fair, but if you don't want a job with an employer who wants short haired men, well, don't take the job; it's as simple as that.
It's not! Sadly, much of the world is run by fools.
Tatoo's and piercings are not a natural decoration, hair is. Do you make female employees cut their hair? Saying that one sex can have hair long, but the other cannot, is discrimination. I have seen men with longhair look very professional in business attire. Many are simply required to tail or othersisw contain their hair neatly. Hair grows naturally, body piercings and tattoos are alterations/aberations.
I agree Carol as hair is a natural occurrance that happens to both men and women.Should either sex decide they prefer short hair than so be it.However the same is true should either prefer to let their hair grow long.Long hair doesn't mean the person is unkempt or sloppy.There are ways to make hair look neat and appropriate for business.It sounds to me that Chris is a control freak who wants more power over an individual than should be allowed.
Mark
Hmm, finger and toe nail growth is also a natural thing, so stop cutting those nails, and let them grow out to hideous proportions. And body odor is also something natural that occurs to one's body, so stop using deoderant. Hell, we're born naked right? So just stop wearing clothes all together. And toothpaste and toothbrushes don't grow on trees, that's man made items. So no point in keeping up with dental hygiene, and just let the gunk and stuff rot your teeth out.
Like I said, hair length is a choice. I'm not being a "control freak" or a "hair nazi". And despite what many of you are saying, appearance DOES matter. It matters to the point that if a customer comes in and doesn't like the appearance of it's employees, they take their business somewhere else. It's just that simple. I will not lose business based on letting my employees carry their appearances however they see fit, because it's their "right to free expression". If they want to work for the competition, so be it.
And to clarify, I'm not discriminating against race, religion, sex, physical ability. I hate hearing stories of how some companies turn down people based on THESE things, and it's unfortunate that in a new mellinium, these things do happen. You cannot choose what sex your born with, you cannot choose what race your born to, and physical ability (whether birth defect or accidental) is not by choice. Your hygiene and appearance is, and as such, I don't think the government should tell ME that I have to accept someone's appearance that they so CHOOSE to have.
Lol, what a joker! Hell yeah, we should just abandon civilization all together and chase down and kill prey with our bare hands! Your opinion of us is actually kinda funny!
You must realize that most longhairs are pretty fussy about their appearance. One of the vices of longhair is pride, (sad but true my brothers). I know I look much better with longhair than I do without it. I shower everyday, brush my teeth twice a day, (I still have them all at 47) and I most certainly groom my hair. I've had girls come up in stores and run their hands through my hair and say, "sorry, I just had to". You think that made my day or what? Yeah, we choose to grow it, damn right.
I'm so glad you are in the minority of hair haters, once again you don't speak for the sum of all employers. Your customers probably care a lot less about hair than you do.
What I think is, this suggestion scares the hell out of you because it would make you face one of the things that keep you up at night.
If such a thing existed we'd have some doctors and lawyers with longhair. People who hate it would have to shut up and deal with it. After a while, no one would see it as a negative thing.
Here's some advice, the first step in overcoming your fear is to face it. You come here to talk with us, to find out just who the hell we really are. So what else do you want to know? Ask me anything.
Bring it on,
Paul
I thnk you hit in right on the head Paul. Fear. That is the only thing that could send someone over the edge with such rage as this troll seemed to be.
Only those in the grip of the fear can tell what it really is about and probably most will never face it.
There is a vast difference between not wanting to do something yourself and trying to convince or force others to stop doing it.
Even those it's just a troll Paul, it's still invogorating to take a few swings anyway just to get the blood up! :)
Bravo!
Hey Chris and thanks, unfortunately my response to this troll has caused a rift. At least 2 are leaving and several others are upset about it. Why would someone get worked up about me taking a few swings at this guy?
Paul
Paul
It wasn't you that caused James to leave, he has quit the board before in a fit of self righteousness about politics, and then returned later on. This may happen again. But it wasnt you, he may have been looking for an excuse to leave again.
James and Austin know each other so I think it's really one opinion to quit (James') that triggered Austin's despite his assurance that it isn't so.
If I don't agree with a post I will just post back, then someone else will post and then the whole thing gets killed by the moderators LOL. No harm done and we all stay.
As for activism, not every longhair is activist material for longhair issues. I am not really activist material for anything and if I were longhair issues would not be the first priority for me. There are so many really dangerous foes to fight.
Take care
chris after reading your posts your a damn dick man simple as that, this site is for long haired men not haters like you douche bag!!!
Hell Yeah!!!
See, I'm not the only one!
Thanks Mark,
Paul
anytime bro i totally agree with ya 100%!!!
Hi Mark. Your sayings are funny, but I agree with you. I assume that Chris' hair is short if he forces men to cut their hair if they wish to work for him.
Matthew aka Regardless
First off, respect goes both ways. If you assume that someone with long hair is a rebel and has no tolerance for society, expect to get this attitude in return as you will not receive respect from them.
I like to get to know someone before judging them, I only ask the same in return. :-)
I have long hair, but I also respect people. I wear my hair long , because I like my hair long. Plain and simple! :-) If you want to take the time to get to know us, and I recommend this, you will find, most people here have this same state of mind.
Sure, I disagree with your post, and I have the choice not to work for you. But, to me, being turned down for a job because of my hair is long, is very unfair. Long hair can look very neat and professional.
I am a very kind, smart, and laid back individual! :-)
I agree with you 100%. Your photo is more presentable than a lot of short hairs I come across.
That photo was taken at my Sister's wedding last spring. Seeing pictures of me from the front, you can't even tell I have long hair.
Yes, you are indeed the type of Hair Nazi who causes all the problems.
All that capitalization is like shouting, I don't have to stoop to that level to get my point across.
You do not speak for all the employers / managers in the world or even in America. I have been an employer having run framing crews, trim crews, remolding crews and other assorted construction crews. When I do work by the hour, like I do now because of the recession, it don't take long for me to find myself in a boss type position. Whether I want to or not, I usually find myself running the crew.
I never have hired or fired any one based on hair, sex, race, religion or any other non-job related issues. I hired and fired based on their skills. Once I had to fire a good friend because he was the worst carpenter I've ever seen. We're still friends, he joined the army and is presently in Iraq.
But of course, this is construction so looks don't matter, right? Well I've seen many longhaired guys that look very neat and professional. I've also seen short haired guys that look like total crap. Your post is a perfect example of someone who has a complete and total obsessive prejudice against something he doesn't understand.
Longhair does not portray anything. The only single trait that all of us have in common is the length of our hair. We have liberals and conservatives, atheist and christian, rich and poor, young and old. This perception is in your mind, not ours.
No one said "to hell with the rights of everyone else". What I see is people like you saying to hell with mine. My hair has nothing to do with the quality of work I do and if I cut it then that would be a change I'd have to live with for about 4 years. Why should you have the right to force me to make a change like that. Most tattoos can be covered up at work, piercing can be taken out at work, long hair cannot be grown back when you clock out. That's the differance.
The tail is the compromise, if you cannot meet us at that point then maybe there should be a law on a federal level. You should have your butt sued for having such a controlling attitude. You are just an employer, not a slave master. I feel sorry for anyone having to put up with you as a boss.
You are probably a hit and run, but in case you come back to see what happened, consider why you have such a distorted view of us.
Being in the south I know a lot of otherwise intelligent people who have a strong dislike of blacks. When I ask them how many blacks they know, they can't name but a handful. What they do is judge by what they've been taught and had a few bad incidents which was probably caused by their own attitudes. They never really thought about it, never had a decent conversation with an "African American". They just stick their heads up their asses and live in fear.
If you ever really tried to get to know a few of "us" then you'd understand what I'm saying. Prejudice is ignorance and you sir, are a caseload of ignorance.
Paul
Get over yourself. Posts like these are the reason I've been visiting this site less and less. No one will ever take you seriously if you go parading around, trumpeting such vile slurs, which are no better than the codes against long hair.
The system may not be perfect, but I'd much rather live under it and change things through the correct procedure than participate in some cockamamie scheme you've dreamed up. Get with reality!
Yeah... I don't like you much either.
I noticed that you didn't post a reply to Chris and his little bully post. Did you read that, I mean what, did you agree with him or something? Maybe you were just intimidated by his distorted view of me, you and everybody else here. I rather talk to him than you, at least I can fathom were he comes from.
So you think "Hair Nazi" is a vile slur? That's a little weird coming from one with longhair. Surly you know who I'm describing? I admit, it's an ugly term. Who wants to be compared with a Nazi? Unless they have a thing for Hitler...
BTW, the "cockamamie" scheme was not mine, please try to pay attention. It was Tom's and I agree with it (on principle anyway if not procedure).
And finally, who needs you?
Paul
Nazism was an ideology based off the superiority of one thing (the Aryan race) to everything else. So yes, I believe that Hair Nazi and is very fitting term, and totally agree with Paul.
lol cockamamie? who uses words like that...
I fully agree with everything you just said. Sure, hair Nazi may be a vile term, but in some cases, such vileness is absolutely required. Try as you might, you cannot reason with such ignorance. It just is not possible. You can be as civil and as reasonable as you wish, but in the end, they are still going to deny you your basic rights. Make no mistake.
Thank you Dalena Banshee,
This is what I expected more of. Can you imagine my Surprise?
Love to have more people like you listed as friends on my little "Hair Club" profile.
Paul
Chris...arrogance AND ignorance...a very toxic combination sir.
Max
Ironically, before the rights of the Rehabilitation Act required in the federal sector, became the ADA and law for all; businesses used to make the same hue and cry about hiring/accomodating disabled people! They once did the same for blacks and women too! And while the laws change as we speak, you can discriminate against a gay person in many areas. Your 'rights' end, when they interfere with the fundamental rights of a protected class. The very begining of the Civil Rights Act states this. Having longhair is not detrimental to the operation of a business: just like hiring those of a certain religion, nationality, gender, race or disabilty. Sexual orientation may be part of that class. Hair length could very well be there some day.
"And if I make allowances for "JUST" hair length, the next thing that will come along, is someone wanting to have visible tatoos and body pearcings. And why stop there? Does enforcing someone to wear a blue dress shirt descriminate against someone who prefers to wear yellow?"
The difference is an earing can be taken out and clothes can be changed at the end of the day. Hair cannot be reattached and takes years to grow. I have seen plenty of guys with long hair just as presentable and some more than guys with short hair.
I keep a list of condemned things, which has about 14 items on it. Two of the 14 items are people that tell long-haired men to cut their hair for whatever reason, and discrimination. For example, allowing a women to keep her hair long when hiring for a job but forcing men to cut their hair is discrimination, and I do not tolerate it. Sorry, even though I am looking for a job, I rather not work for you.
Matthew aka Regardless
oh, and being professional is an attitude, it runs MUCH deeper than physical appearance. People should be hired based on skills, not petty physical differences, or differences in style. In my opinion, tattoos, as well as piercings, SHOULD be allowed in any workplace. If your idea of "being professional" is being a closed minded, uptight prick, then I am glad that you would consider me to be "unprofessional".
I'm a nice guy, but blatant ignorance such as this really strikes a sensitive cord with me. Someone's appearance doesn't hurt anyone, so, in the end, why the **** care? Let people be themselves and do as they please, so long as it does not hurt anyone else.
I agree completely with you Tom, now is the time.
I can't believe the responses this post has got. These are perfect examples of the "just cut it" mentality. Sheep!
If a potential employer don't like your hair, chop it off to please him! If you don't want to cut it, go work somewhere else!
Well, what if, in the near future, they all agreed we should cut it. There would be no place to work unless we hacked it off. Then maybe they'd want to institute buzz cuts as the standard employee hair cut. How would you all like that?
If it's long enough to get caught in machinery then you'd be completely stupid not to put it up. Doesn't that go without saying? And really, how many jobs are there like that?
OTOH, maybe if I slipped and almost fell off a scaffold, my hair would get caught on something and stop me before I fell and busted my head on the concrete. I know, it's unlikely, but it's all hypothetical.
The state governments and school boards are not going to give in because you "got involved", there is no wining on a local level. That's weak. Those in power do not just give in, do you really think they got there by being pushovers?
What I think is "silly" is any employer hiring based on hair length. That's idiotic. He would hire someone dumb as a sack of hammers rather than a longhair.
We were not a "minority" until recently, but since we've been pushed into that mold we should use what has worked for other minorities in the past. Pass a damn law.
I think what the problem is Tom, you indicated democrats = pro-hair and republicans = anti-hair. No self respecting republican is going to let you pass on that one. No one wants their group to be blamed for the prejudice we deal with.
I want to tell both partys what my personal rankings are; I list "longhair" first, "democrat" second.
Paul
The RNC have a black party chairman now, but there are 12% black people in the US, and only 1% long haired men.
In the interest of not repeating myself, see my reply below Bill's post first.
How would you even propose starting this? I don't think Democrats are even LOOKING at this as an issue. They have been working on gay rights legislation for decades, and that movement has gained far more open support than the right of the longhaired male. Please write to your elected officials and see what response you get. I am pestering mine to pass the SEVERS bill that was passed in the House this summer, and sits currently awaiting Senate approval. I know the Senate delay was due to fears of Bush vetoing it, because he wanted to cut housing vouchers, while Obama desires to increase them. This bill is of great importance to the disabled and the poor/homeless. It gurantees the basic right to have shelter, by making it afordable. With all of the impending bills Congress has been working on, and Obama's vision of what needs to be done, you think there is room for anti-longhair discrimination bills to be introduced at the federal level in the next 2 to 4 years?
Without strong interest/support, and growing legislation against descriminating longhairs at the local and state levels, along with grassroots support and support from a fair number of citizens who are willing to speak with their votes, and for special interest groups to lobby on your behalf; how do you propose to generate federal interest? The feds have only in the past few years become involved in sodomy laws, because the overwhelming support to overturn them, became the majority at local and state levels. Since most sodomy laws have been abolished, and the voting public is in overwhelming favor, the last bastions of those antiquated laws are being told to follow suit, and the right to what you do privately, and whom with, becomes a nationwide right. It's a step forward for gays, but they still don't have protection from discrimination at the federal level. Even the federal courst system requres exhausting the local and state courts first.
Your right and to add to that we have to pick our battles and use our limited resources wisely. There is so much that is desired from the new administration and congress much of which we will not see come to fruition. To be honest how many guys really want to grow their hair long anyway? I suspect not as many as you think. The US being a center right country I don't see a mans right to wear his hair long and not be denied a job for it as a hot issue any time soon. Sure it would be nice, I would love it. I would also like to see gays and lesbians have the right to get married but most of the Christians get all in a tizzy over it.
Someday perhaps society will lighten up enough.
Kevin
I don't really think the officials of the Democrat party care much about our issues. OTOH, far from thinking that they will lose control in two years, I think they will hold the house and gain more than the 60/40 they need to avoid a fillibuster in the senate.
I think this because I believe that the religeous right and the neo-cons are spent forces. Maybe even more so because the North-Eastern moderate Republicans have collapsed for the time being, as their voters never liked either of the two groups I just mentionned. Those NE voters may drift back to the Republicans when they are sure those groups have gone, but I think that could take more than two years.
Getting down to the legislation, it will be hard to get, but it exists in DC, so over the long term we should be able to get it in other places. Long hair discrimination is always sex discrimination, as it is never applied to women, but the courts have failed to enforce this aspect of sex discimination law, by the most fallacious reasoning imaginable, very much equivalent to the discredited 'separate but equal' standard once applied to race. As a result, we need to try to get something like 'hair style' to be a protected class, as it is in DC, as applying gender as the protected class has failed to work for us.
Actually, it is not quite true that I have never heard of hair discrimination against women. Specific examples that I can think of that have happened with both genders are dyeing with unnatural colours, e.g. blue, green, etc. and braiding African type hair into corn rows (the latter, AFAIK, is what prompted the DC law).
I also worked with one woman who was nagged by our employer at the time (who didn't care about me having long hair) to cut off her rat tail, and she gave in. For those who don't know what a rat tail is, it's when you have short hair except for one very small area that is grown long, and often made into a single very thin braid. It's almost a mullet on steroids, but it's different enough to be something quite separate of it's own.
We need to ally ourselves with GLBT groups including the transgendered and with groups opposed to racial discrimination. We have quite a few gay members and have had one or two transgendered people from time to time, although very rarely anyone of African origin, but some of other ethnic minorities.
Gay people have yet to gain their own protection from discrimination in every jurisdiction, which means we can help them if they help us, although there are somewhat fewer of us. The transgendered also have an interest in hair style being a protected class per se, and also have only got themselves as a protected class only in a few places. Gay people and transgendered are sometimes represented by the same organisations, even though it is in no way the same thing.
As for racial discrimination, many people in organisations that represent that issue feel that discrimination against ethnic hair styles is a secondary form of racial discrimination, and we should be able to make common cause with them in that way.
I am amazed by the number of negative replies even from our own members, but it shows what we are up against.
Hair length doesn't belong in dress codes. Hair is a body part, not an item of clothing.
Just kidding, I've heard of them.
I have to admit, most of the legal talk involved in these post is way outside my knowledge. I even had to Google "neo-cons". But I agree, any enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Personally I have nothing against Gays, Lesbians, Bi's or Transgenders. I firmly believe people are born with a particular sexual slant. They either deal with it or deny it.
I believe this because I had a friend in grade school who turned out to be gay. He was always a bit different, effeminate. They called him "sissy" and "queer" among other things. Later I found out that the ones who give him the most crap had "experimented" with each other. Lol, what some hypocrites.
For those who are wondering, I didn't. Personally, I like women with big butts, a guy's skinny butt just don't do it for me. But whatever floats your boat.
I support anyone's fight if they support mine. If someone backs me I don't ask, "are you straight?", "do you dress like a girl?", hell, I don't even ask, "do you have long hair?" If you are willing to stand up and say, "it's wrong to force students to cut their hair!" then you are welcome with open arms.
BTW, the negativity is amazing isn't it?
Paul
Yeah, the negativity is pretty hard to understand, apart from the odd troll here and there.
I thought of another group we could ally with. It's called SOPHIE and it's named after someone called Sophie who was murdered for being a Goth, or more specifically for defending her boyfriend (they were both Goths). He's alive because she blocked his attackers, but at the cost of her own life. Their agenda is to prevent violence and discrimination against people who choose to look different, not just goths, although of course a lot of their members are goths.
I'm not a goth, or gay, or transgendered, or black, but I don't think we can do this alone. Whether we can or should do this using this board is another question.
As for the 'hair Nazi' thing, I don't blame you for that. I don't lose sleep over those who perpetrate discrimination.
Yes, I read about that, from what I remember she was kicked to death. It upset me very much. They got the guys that did it as I think they're all in prison now.
I really thought everybody here would be all about standing up for their rights. Now I'm just bummed.
Paul
Well, there are people who believe that all discrimination is wrong, like yours truly, and then there are some who go through life in their own little bubble.
Alun
*sigh*
No doubt.
It's gonna be another board war.
Paul
*sigh sigh sigh sigh*
*hyperventilates*
*passes out*
ahhhhh peace and quiet....
=P
I have only one opinion on discrimination. I condemn it. I have a list of around 14 condemned things in my life, and discrimination is one of them. For example, if a job allows a woman to have their hair at any length while men are forced to cut their hair, then that is discrimination and I will not tolerate it.
Matthew aka Regardless