new thread
Hi guys. It's been awhile since I've posted, but I've been thinking about long hair and employment. I suppose the timing is because of the dismal job market right now, with no signs of improving.
Job discrimination of males with long hair is sex discrimination, bottom line. This isn't a matter of opinion- this is fact. If I'm a male and cannot have long hair while women can, there's no way that ISN'T sex discrimination. Employers would have to require short hair for both males and females to not be discrimination.
Even though sex discrimination (along with racial, etc) is considered "illegal", this is not really the case.
I really don't know how this has been allowed to stand. I know that this board has discussed this endlessly, but I'm wanting to learn more about the details of how this has been able to continue. I have hair down to mid-back, so this affects me.
What is the specific rationale?
There is no rational reason.
we live in a country where the majority of wealth has become increasingly concentrated in the top 1%.
the top 1% orchestrated the financial collapse of the economy so they could benefit even more.
the majority of the people in this country are paycheck slaves so by making it more difficult to seek employment it gives them even more control over the job applicants including appearance and when x-number of people show up for job fairs with the majority of Men with short short haircuts and a couple with long hair guess who is going to have a better chance at even an interview for an actual position?
having closely cropped hair and wearing a monkey suit tells them you are willing to be a good slave so they are willing to talk with you again than the guy with the long hair, who is more inclined to be a free thinker and corporations don't want free-thinkers working for them. they want docile obedient sheep.
even if the long haired male is more intelligent and better educated they will rather employ someone who is willing to play their game and conform to their expectations and look like the usual drones you see working for corporations.
what people need to do is organize and stand up to the corporate tyrants, but people are scared at losing their jobs(if they have one) or their homes and many have children so Men are willing to sacrifice their locks to have a shot at a job.
it would take probably about 40-50% of the entire population to be unemployed before you would see some type of revolution start to materialize, but I do think one is overdue.
Jerry
Yes, all valid points about wage slavery and conformism to profit motive. Corporations are ruled top-down, thus they are private tyrannies. Any power structure that puts what is beneficial for the decision-makers (shareholders, CEO) over the general population (labor) is a tyranny.
But this still doesn't explain exactly how they can so blatantly require different standards based on gender. Some companies even have this gender discrimination printed right IN the employee handbook. Yet at the same time, they label their company as an "equal opportunity employer."
So I'm really looking for court cases, etc on this issue. I want to know what the rationale is at the judicial level.
I find it interesting that many of those who dismiss this as an issue simultaneously chirp on about "individual rights."
I agree and all of that progress we longhairs made during the 1960s and 1970s seems to have been done all for nothing.
most Men are automatically expected in many workplaces to have hair neatly cut above the ears and off the shirt collar like they did back in the early 1960s before we 'radicals' protested and things began to change, but then came the 1980s and the trends towards shorter and shorter hair, conformism, and more power in the top 1% has persisted so you basically don't have any rights as a male employee when it comes to your appearance. it is like a throwback to the 1950s for Men, but women have gained more rights.
I would love to see a longhair on the supreme court, but unfortunately it may be another century before that actually happens.
have you considered self-employment as an alternative?
Jerry
I would mention that not all the gains made in the 1960s and
1970s have been lost.
If you are really good at your job and have skills that
an employer needs then it is possible to get the job you want
without cutting your hair.
In 1986 I had long hair and got a job. Now 26 years later
i've still got long hair and i'm still working for that same
company.
The result is I can wear my hair as long as I want, I can wear whatever clothes I want. Much of the time I wear my hair looee,
only tying it in a pony tail or braid or pig tails when it
is windy/storming/etc. Most of the time i'm wearing cut off shorts, jeans, or overalls.
So yes it is possible to get employment without cutting off
your beautiful hair.
That was 1986 and the economy was in much better shape then than it is now and you didn't see a proliferation of guys with barbershop type haircuts including buzzcuts/crewcuts like you do now.
that didn't really start to become "trendy" until the 1990s.
what few short haired guys there were was mostly among the wall-street type yuppie crowd and even some yuppies didn't quite wear their hair that short in 1986.
You have remained with your employer for over 25 years and your boss considers you quite loyal so he is not about to go tell you to get a haircut since you know the job and it would require probably a considerable amount of time and money to retrain someone new to do what you probably know.
yes, especially since you've been with the same employer since the 1980s.
like the 1980s song stated: "That was then and this is now".
It's a different story for some guys that are out of work today looking for a job.
the longhair that is employed should not even consider leaving his current job even if he hates it because the next employer may scrutinize him from head to toe and not like his long hair and there will be many short haired Men standing in line jumping at a chance to have that job.
Yes, it is about control.
The problem is that if they are stopped from treating men's hair differently from women's hair in what they say or write, they will do so in another way. They will require all candidates to be "smart in appearance", and then exclude long haired men from the final shortlist (aptly named!!) for "not looking smart".
Being different does have the disadvantage that unimaginative people will discriminate against you, and even though you would probably prefer not to work for them, in today's job market, we do not always have the choice.
There have been many Educated and Enlightened Men with long hair.
how could anyone equate short hair with being more intelligent than someone with long hair unless you meant "smart" as in
fashion sense and to me requiring Men to have short hair makes absolutely no sense to me!
Sorry for the confusion. I was using "smart" in the British English sense as a comment on how somebody looks, not in the sense of "ingtelligent".
I was just wanting to point out that controlling employers will substitute words which are not strictly discriminatory for others which could cause trouble for them, but still discriminate in exactly the same way. If they really want to, they will, even though anybody with an open mind will know that they probably won't get the best person for the job.
And thank you for your support for long haired males through the world. Although I grow mine essentially for myself, it's good to know that there are people out there who like it.
The only rationale is that there is no appeal from the court system, so judges read rules how they want. For example, the U.S. Constitution:
1. Prohibits involuntary servitude, but courts allow there to be a military draft.
2. Gives citizens the right to bear arms, but courts allow states to ban machine guns and bazookas.
3. Limits federal authority to interstate commerce, but courts allow federal prosecution of people who grow pot in their own back yards for their own use.
Any fifth grader who has learned to read can understand that the following against me would be sex discrimination:
1. That I can't grow my hair as long as women can.
2. That I can't marry my husband while any woman could.
The problem is not that a judge is not smarter than a fifth grader. The problem is that many judges don't have the empathy of a fifth grader. Fifth graders are mature enough by that age to understand you don't kick puppies out of compassion and empathy. They don't kick puppies with abandon because they were lucky enough to not have been born a puppy.
The only way to counter this nature of judges is to get some longhairs on the bench. When your own kind is being abused, empathy then runs deep.
California has a law that women have the right to wear pants instead of dresses. This was passed after one woman got into the legislature. Getting one person on the inside who was willing to advocate was all it took. No minority gets their rights protected by getting a majority elected. They get a minority stake, but by being inside, they are far more able to tap into the empathy of others.
That California law illustrates the ludicrousness of this "insider" situation. Women are protected from pressure to look a way that they can undo later that day. Longhairs are not protected from pressure to look a way that can take years to correct.
Bill
SoulSpin may unfortunately have to "play the game" temporarily and wear his hair in a short style similar to this guy in order to get hired or at least until the economy turns around which may take at least ten years, if that soon!
the only other alternative may be self-employment!
Jerry
when I was a senior in h.s there was this cute guy who had the most gorgeous long hair that any girl or guy would be envious.
then I saw him one day with his hair all cut off short just like in that photo and I just wanted to cry.
I asked him "How could you do that? you had such beautiful long hair?"
he told me his boss informed him that it had to be cut short for the workplace dress code.
it's just not fair! they would never had asked a girl to do that!
that was tied with me, once. I was being interviewed and the HR guy was all abuzz over my portfolio and resume. I also tested out with the highest score he had seen. We Were almost completly through the process, when he asked me if there would be a problem with cutting my hair. I said there would not be a problem as the hair stays. My body language nad inflection let him know there was no further need to go on and I had begun to thank him for his time when he said "Wait, don't leave." and he rushed from the room. There were some murmurrings and he came back and said that the hair would not be an issue. And the job offer was completed. Of course. Now this was some time ago. and in a creative field. However, If need be, and if you can deal with the possibilities, stand your ground.
Let that be a lesson to stand your ground and refuse to cut your
hair. Especially if you're good at your job.
My own parents are of the 1960s generation. My Dad lucked out and was not drafted and he told me about what it was like in school and how he could not wear long hair and how my Mom could not wear pants even when it was freezing out!
what I would like to know is why are Men still not permitted to wear their hair long at their job.
I thought the 1960s took care of that sort of discrimination?
I'm personally a coder, and I have to say that discrimination really doesn't exist for tech.
Good coders are already in very short order. Same with other engineers -- because the demand for them are very high, it's a lot easier to get into a big company with a ponytail.
Zuckerberg's hoodie/liner is considered the new power suit, well among some circles. Now let's turn the (waist length or longer preferable) ponytail into the new business cut.
Besides, I've had a friend tell me that UNIX conferences are secretly a ponytail competition.
As I have posted elsewhere, in the 60s a lot of men regarded short hair and a lot of women regarded skirts as symbols of repression.
Women have made more progress towards equality in most civilised nations, with trousers/pants having become the choice of well above half the female population, whether at work or at leisure. Angela Merkel is a good example!
However, long haired men are still very much a minority and are frequently denied that choice by discrimination or by pressure. We still have a long way to go.
Why should a Man be required to cut his hair if he doesn't want to?
if you smell clean and dress appropriately for work your hair length should not matter.
The root problem, I feel, is that there are two distinctly different versions of American culture. Our self-image holds that we are are a freedom-loving and free people, intelligent and respectful of others, strongly individualistic, and constantly striving to uphold the rights of all people within our society. We are the shining light on the hill. In other words, we are pretty awesome!
The ugly reality is that we restrict our own freedoms at every opportunity and have slowly transformed the US into an all-out plutocracy. Taken as a whole, we are rigid, utterly conformist, anti-intellectual, and reject anything that falls outside a very narrow window of what is considered socially acceptable. We worship authority and find great pleasure in using force to bend others to our will, whether it's by legislation, by taser, by rifle, or by openly discriminating against those displaying traits deemed undesirable.
Undesirable can and has meant many things throughout our history: black, white, poor, homeless, female, long-haired, gay, Irish, Chinese, etc.
I could spend all night listing the vast differences between what we think we are, and what we really are. My point is that you'll find this inconsistency regarding men in the workplace to be only one among many inconsistencies within our society as a whole. The sad fact of the matter is that having long hair as a man is considered undesirable and unless you can adhere to a specific set of traits that make it easier for them to pigeonhole you, such as being a rock musician or a biker or a dirty hippie, you are to be outcast.
Your options are to conform, to find an environment where your hair isn't an issue, or to make that environment for yourself.
Take a look at the case Jespersen v. Harrah's 444 F.3d 1104 (2006). It is out of the 9th circuit court of appeals and is the leading case on the subject, at least so far. It gives the employer expansive rights for grooming standards and surprisingly, is from the most liberal appellate court in the United States.
For those who want to read the details, here is a link to the court decision:
Jespersen v. Harrah's
This is pretty much standard. nothing new. every hospitality business usually has the same "grooming" standards in their employee handbook.
"Women were allowed to have long hair and Men were required to
have their hair cut to a length above the collar"
"Males:
Hair must not extend below top of shirt collar
ponytails are prohibited"
my suggestion is if you want to keep your hair DO NOT under any circumstances apply for any position in the hospitality industry and that includes restaurants as well!
This is because most of the time customers spend with them is very brief. During the first few minutes, first impressions really count. If an employee's day is filled with first impressions, the employer is going to be heavily concerned about them. Besides hospitality workers, consider that bank tellers, salesmen, parcel deliverymen and the like have one first impression after another, and these are all occupations where dress codes and hair codes run rampant.
On the other hand, when I worked as an engineer, the five minutes of first impression time with a client was insignificant compared to the monthlong endeavor of designing his building that was to follow. He really did not care what I looked like compared to how much he cared about what his building would turn out like. My boss knew I would be spending little time making first impressions and a lot of time designing buildings. Also, pretty boys are easy to find. People who can design highrise buildings are not. When clients asked for me to be put on their projects that had been given to pretty boys, this did not bode well for them. It did for me.
So if you want to avoid hassle about your hair, aim for a field where they will care what you can do more than what you look like. Asking yourself what percentage of your time will be spent during the five minute first impression window will help you in making a decision.
Bill
How come I, as a woman can wear my hair long(even to my butt) or short(currently short) and work in any profession where a Man is required to have short and only short hair in the same professions?
if people judge a long haired Man in an unfavorable way because he has long hair when they do not judge a Man with short hair that would make them a bigot, would it not?
employers who dictate Men can have only short hair are definitely discriminating.
I just can't understand why this practice is allowed to continue!
Of course, but that's the problem with the common law legal system.
In the US, the EEOC have actually issued a statement that they believe the proper meaning of the federal statute would allow men to file suit for discrimination against long hair, BUT it then goes on to say that the courts have interpreted the statute in such a way that there is really little or no chance of success.
As Bill knows, I am not a lawyer, but I am a patent agent, and have some experience interpreting court decisions (he used to be a lawyer, but chose to switch to engineering).
In the common law system the courts interpret the statutes (special word for the laws as actually passed by governments) and then this sets a precedent (or stare decisis in the US, from the Latin) that other courts must follow if they are lower in the packing order. So, if the politicians that write the statutes fail to dot every i and cross every t, then the courts will not only interpret it in a way they never anticipated, but we can then be stuck with that interpretation.
Looking at Jespersen, what lawyers back home in England would call the 'ratio' of the case (using the Latin for rationale, which is in turn a French word!) is that gender based discrimination is OK as long as it only places an equal burden on each gender. American lawyers talk about the 'holding' of the case, but in this particular case it probably amounts to the same thing.
The facts of the case were that Jespersen was a woman fired for not wearing makeup and her termination was upheld, but that doesn't stop courts from applying a wider principle than that, once they have said what it is.
Now you and I know that this is not likely to be what Congress intended (and courts are supposed to look at what congress discussed, but they may not have said anything helpful), but once a court decides something like that it sticks.
Jespersen is only a 9th circuit case, and not a US Supreme Court case, so it is only binding in the 9th circuit, which I understand is out West, but it is 'persuasive' precedent elsewhere, which really just means if they can't find anything that contradicts it in their own neck of the woods they will apply Jespersen for want of anything better.
The only way to get a statute to do what was really intended is to really spell it out in terms that even a lawyer can't twist into something else, but they are written by politicians (or really by their aides) and that may not be in their skill set (or may not even be their objective).
Thanks, Bill. I knew I forgot something.