new thread
OK, maybe mad is the wrong word; anger/frustration seems to be a better description. Im talking about the hypocrisy that some organisations show towards long hair.
I'd like you to look at this first:
http://www.valleyfair.com/public/jobs/expectations.cfm
How is that fair? I mean if women are allowed then why shouldnt men be allowed to? That is an old argument i know, perhaps it doesnt need fresh debate.
What really annoyed me about it though is that this is a company, dictacting how men can wear their hair. The consequences of not complying is discrimination. Apparently this constitutes their uniform code.
Now, international troops are fighting to overthrow the taliban/al quaeda regimes, under which a man can be executed for wearing the wrong hair style, an extreme form of discrimination.
I realize that one can boycott the company amd not a goverment they live under, i still think there is a strong correlation between the two. Both are opressive of the individuals right to choose. Neither is fair. How can this be allowed?
It just infuriates and saddens me to see such blatant discrimination and unfairness in a time when individuality and freedom are supposed to be prized.
Sorry for the long post, i just wanted to say this.
Peace,
Paul
It says you can't have hair more than 2 inches long!
No partially shaved hair. (So if the top is an inch long and the sides are shaved, I suppose that's "exotic", as they call.)
No sideburns beyond the earlobe or sideburns that flare out.
No mustache unless it's already full-grown when applying for the job.
No goatee.
Why are men, like soldiers, expected to conform into the same person? Why must a man be a "man" while a woman can be whatever she wants?
How do girls even find men attractive nowadays? So much of us look exactly the same!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. And I'll keep on saying it until the world wakes up to it (which really means I'll be saying this on my deathbed!):
This kind of thing is blatently IMMORAL. To deny any human being the God/Gods/Goddess/whatever given right to define themselves is one of the worst breaches of morality possible. With all the carping we hear about morality these days, it's high time the world woke up to this one!
-Zorba
Another link to look at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/newsid_1136000/1136013.stm
Was gonna be in my first post, couldnt remember the link.
Tim, i agree totally. The whole 'cloning' thing thats seems to exsist in mens fashion today is awful and i hate it.
Paul.
They probably have sucky jobs anyway.
It's an amusement park. An entertainment venue. They even say they are looking for people good with people, while saying little about applicants' skills at doing anything else.
Disney for years has called their employees "cast members", asserting they were actors, and from a thread just below this one, we've seen the issues that arise in that field. Classifying them as actors tosses the anti-discrimination statutes out the window, and if they want skinny white hairless male teenagers picking up cigarette butts, they can tell thirty-something black dudes to take a hike. One does wonder, though, how entertaining guys picking up cigarette butts actually are. ;-)
It IS pretty stupid the way people react to individuality of any kind; be it long hair, points of view, etc. However, there is a big difference between government and business discrimination.
A business is property, and you should be able to do whatever you want with your property (even be a dick), so long as you are not violating the rights of others without their consent. And yes, you do have a right to long hair, but your interaction with a business, or business owner, is voluntary. You don't have to work there, they don't have to let you work there. So any violation of your hair rights requires your voluntary consent to the business.
A government, on the other hand, does not derive its power over your life from your consent. It is thrust upon you, as it were. So it should be a servant of the needs of the people (in order to justify its own existence, at least), and therefore has no business discriminating against any member (or sub-group) of the people they serve.
If it does, then it is abusing its power. A business, on the other hand, cannot abuse its power because you can walk away (at least when the argument is limited to dress codes; Bopal, etc. are another matter entirely and too big for this limited discussion).
I hope that's clear,
The Rev
HOW long has it been since people started arguing about hair length??? It's just plain stupid.
A braid or Tail can look just as neat or neater...
...than some bushy hair styles I've seen.
Since Christ it's been one fight after another and I
for one am stick of it!
GROW IT! SHOW IT!
Nobody who is not a complete cypher would be able to work for a boss like this who obviously believes in total control and blames it on 'the expectations of his customers'.
Garbage.
WOW! That's it. Now I'm just going to have to cut my long hair so I can get a minimum-wage job like these sheep. If I had a business; I would require male employees to have long hair. I bet the courts would "nail" me for discrimination -- upholding the ongoing double standards. Look at most judges (old, short-haired stereotypes). I guess we still have a long way to go before this BS is ended.
I DEFINITELY FEEL THAT DISCRIMINATING AGAINST A MAN FOR HIS HAIR LENGTH SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. IT'S JUST PLAIN WRONG. WOMEN'S EQUALITY HAS COME A LONG WAY, WHY SHOULDN'T THERE ALSO BE MALE EQUALITY? INDIVIDUAL EXPRESSION IS IMPORTANT, AND I THINK A MAN SHOULD LEGALLY BE ALLOWED TO HAVE HIS HAIR WHATEVER LENGTH; AND IF HE'S A PROFESSIONAL, THERE COULD BE RESTRICTIONS ON HOW IT'S WORN, PERHAPS, BUT NOT THE LENGTH. IT ALSO SEEMS LIKE THE ONLY LEEWAY A "PROFESSIONAL" MAN HAS IN HIS DRESS IS A DIFFERENT COLORED TIE, WHILE WOMEN CAN WEAR MANY DIFFERENT STYLES. IF WERE GOING TO HAVE EQUALITY, THAT SHOULD MEAN FEMALE AND MALE.
Please don't use all upper case in posts. It is hard to read.