new thread
Hello fellow longhairs. I've been persuing this fine forum for a little while, and thought you may want to give my recent article a gander (and feedback if it moves you to do so). It's titled, "Do Not Abide: The Long-Haired Male and Legal Gender Role Coercion"
It's basically about how the denial of employment to long-haired males is part of the bigger issue of institutionalized gender role coercion. I think if we're as inclusive as possible, we can make headway in changing obsolete, legal discrimination. But, it really starts with our own actions (and non-actions) by not enabling this practice by submitting to its rules.
Anywho, thanks!
Do Not Abide: The Long-Haired Male and Legal Gender Role Coercion
While agreeing in principle your viewpoint that men shouldn't be discriminated against on having long hair and more on ability I didn't like how you labelled people whose worldview you don't agree with and belittling them as living in man-caves, with warbling girlfriends. I read your article and think it was very smug, patronizing with a touch of arrogance and snobbery.
Duncan
I'm sorry you found the article condescending snobbery. That's the nature of writing on a tiny blog and throwing stuff out there - we all have a perspective.
But, I'm certainly not saying all opponents of movement X are this or that. It'd be ridiculous to think an assertion like that would be taken seriously. Man cave" is an often self-used description of a basement-type area where men can get away from their wives/GFs while they do "man" things, thus relevant to the gist of the article - gender roles and oppression. While it was used comically, it wasn't close to trying to aim crosshairs at anyone. "Warbling GF" wasn't related to that at all, so I'm confused about the issue with that one. I generally criticize, or find humorous elements of many worldviews, lifestyles, politics, movements, cultures, works of art, etc, with the tone that assumes others will see it as tongue-in-cheek generalizing humor within serious discussion.
But you're right - I will criticize worldviews which I consider to advocate encroachment on people's lives, whether it's denying gay marriage or practicing sex discrimination of long-haired males. As for "belittling,"
Thanks for your comments.
Thanks for your efforts in bringing this umfair discrimination to light. I have long hair, but I have to conceal it at work. I hide it under caps, or down my shirt in a ponytail. If I were to expose it, I know for a fact I would be ostracized, ridiculed and let go. I know this by hearing all the sexist hateful language towards long haired males. I can only cringe and keep on with my work. I needed this job to live. I am an at will employee. You are correct, I have none of the rights afforded to women or a protected class such as minority or disabled. A female can have her hair ANY LENGTH she desires, and would usually never suffer ridicule in the workplace. If I let my hair down I know for a fact I would soon be hungry, homeless, and broke. This is a great INJUSTICE. Do you think it takes another case to go to the Supreme Court for a new ruling? I have NO recourse to sue an employer for discrimination. Remember the Supreme Court previously ruled negroes were not people.
Hi, and thanks for the feedback. I'm not a lawyer, but I do believe it would have to go to Supreme Court at this time, considering the well-established precedent. One thing I notice is that these cases seem to be mostly in the 1970s, which was around the time of very significant social change and movements. It's plausible that it wasn't as pertinent of an issue at the time, even though I completely disagree with the reasoning in the abstracts I read.
I think more light must be put on how gender role coercion in general works against the interests of the Civil Rights Act, but unfortunately those roles are still ingrained enough in employment practice and other activities to influence the current oppression.
I'm sorry to hear about your job situation. I can relate, as I also worked in very similar conditions just to get by. It's frustrating when you do your job well, and something like male hair has such away. Apparently, hair "isn't a big deal" as they tell us to cut it, yet it "is a big deal" if it's too long. It's certainly disingenuous, because it's really all on their terms.
You're right about what black people were considered by courts. The thing is, it's all about assigning roles to people, nothing more. Remove the role-setting, remove a lot of oppression of many people.
Good luck in all you do, and I hope you will be able to be you on YOUR terms in future employment.
Thank you for that. That's a great line. I'm gonna use it.
On the article itself though, I say well done. Yes it is a bit harsh, but when did any movement ever triumph by being nice and playing fair? Was Susan B. Anthony humble and meek? Did Martin Luther King Jr. speak softly and kindly about race? Have you ever seen a gay pride parade made up of people in suits marching rigidly down the street? NO, I SAY TO YOU, NO!
Speak up folks, make some noise! They can't ignore you if you're in their faces.
I thought your article made it's point, even though it was blunt at times,and brought attention to the fact that longhair is fine as long as your a female.That's my biggest beef about the whole anti longhair issue when it comes to men.If an employer is going to require employees to be short haired then it should apply to women as well.I certainly wouldn't work for someone with such petty demands though.Cheers
Mârk
Thanks for your thoughts on it, Mark. I value all the feedback of this community. I applaud you in not submitting to such oppressive demands.
Take care!
Great article, J.M.M.!
Thanks for sharing - I like to say, "If you can't 'get a job', be part of a movement!" Homeschooling, self employment, ecovillage, etc. :)
- Oren
-------------------------
I will start by saying that double standards should be illegal when it applies to your own natural body parts. Hair is a natural body part.
Perhaps the best way to fight back against oppressive employers is to direct as much negative feedback as humanly possible toward them, regarding their practices. Cause them to lose business, make them hurt a bit. If you have a few spare hours, picket them, scaring away customers. Get support from 4 or 5 friends, hand out leaflets, but be honest.
It really surprises me that in a free country that professes freedom of expression and individuality also tries to make us all fit a certain mold with little flexibility. We are a nation of hypocrites.
About 4 centuries ago, our ancestors moved here from Europe to escape oppression. Now things are reversed. Those in Europe enjoy more freedom in certain areas than we do. (I am reasonably sure that longhair discrimination is illegal in most of Europe.)
End of rant.
Scott (Currently enjoying knee length hair.)
What longhaired guys need to do, at least longhaired guys in the U.S. or North America, is to form a formal association to fight against discrimination against men based on hair length, like women, ethnic and religious minorities and others have done to fight for their equal rights.
Then you have locus standii and a formal voice which can fight your cause within established political parties, sympathetic lawyers, politicians, civil liberties associations, unions and so on.
The ad-hoc approach has not worked, so no point continuing to rely on it. An formal association gives longhaired men a formal identity when you sue, picket or demonstrate.
The Netherlands used to have or still has compulsory military service and the soldier's union fought for and won the right for serving soldiers to have long hair.
Winning is possible but you need to get formally organised to fight for your cause.
"What force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one, but the union makes us strong."
"Solidarity Forever!, Solidarity Forever!, but the union makes us strong."
From the song, Solidarity Forever! by Ralph Chaplin 1915
Solidarity Forever! - Ralph Chaplin 1915
I liked and agreed with your article in general, especially as someone who actively resists gender role conformity. However, I got the impression that your article was advocating abolition of all gender-role-conforming behaviour, which is a dangerous stance to take because there are some "macho men" and "girly girls" who are that way simply because they want to be, not because society is forcing them to conform. I have a friend who is a well-educated, free-thinking female who enjoys wearing very feminine clothes, and she gets a lot of negative feedback from peers at her university for "mindlessly conforming to outdated gender norms" when in fact she is just expressing her natural preference. So I feel it's too fine of a line between advocating complete removal of gender roles and turning the tide of discrimination around to crash on those who conform to gender roles naturally.
In short, my advice is to make sure your article advocates the right of people to choose for themselves how non-conforming or conforming to be, rather than encouraging all people to stop conforming, full stop.