new thread
Why is it that many women with shoulder length hair consider their hair "short" now where if a man has hair barely over his ears it's "long".
how is that long?
for me, shoulder length or longer is what qualifies as long hair, not over the ears and perhaps some women had it much longer than shoulder length previously which is why in their mind "it's short".perhaps "shorter" would be a better way of putting it if that was the case, but short at shoulder length? I would disagree with.
I've noticed that salons seems to have this same idea that "long" for a man is different than a woman. I think it should be universally the same.
regardless of gender, if your hair is shoulder length or longer it's long and if it's chin length or above(regardless of gender) it should be considered short.
would you not agree?
For me, there's another type of length, "medium" length is something between chin and neck collar and shouldn't be considered long. But for the others, that "medium" length is the "long" length we're talking about here. I've already seen so many people with medium length rather than long length.
Take care my friend!
I would state that medium length is between chin and shoulder length. anything above the chin is definitely short on a woman and should be regarded as the same for men.
That kind of equality is probably not going to happen within the next century or so, but we should be happy we even have a relative socially acceptable option for "long". The way things are going, if there is to be gender equality as to "long" and "short", it would probably go the other way. Over my lifetime I've seen more women generally wear their hair shorter and shorter. At some point chin length hair may be considered "long" for both sexes.
Societal attitudes have never made any difference to me, though. And I haven't visited a hair shop or salon in many years. One of the many good things about long hair is that it's pretty to cut yourself with just a bit of practice.
I think attitudes about what is long or short hair are relative. That is, they are relative to what is usual. If almost all men wore their hair just touching their shoulders, then long hair would be hair that was considerably longer than just touching the shoulders. Since most men today wear their hair nowhere near touching their shoulders, then hair that is longer than the average could be considered long.
I think this applies to women as well - what is considered long (or short) is relative to the length that most women today are wearing their hair. Since women, in general, wear their hair considerably longer than men today, I would not consider comparing women's hair length to men's hair length a double standard. I think it would only be a double standard if most women and men wore their hair the same length.
My hair salon has been very good at styling longer hair. Three years apprenticeship is required before consideration to permanent status. Only about a third of the candidates qualify. So the quality of their work has been very good. My stylist has alway trimmed the sides more and let the back down longer to pull down the curls. Very good layering just on the ends. A session takes an hour and a half. After drying the hair at the end, they always go back to adjust the cut to make sure the style is even on each side. I go only once every 6 months.
I could never do this myself. So I drive the sixty miles south to a rather expensive area just to go to this one salon. I have seen others drive up in their Porsche, then walk up the stairs to this salon (Maybe a good sign). So they better do a good job. I have never had as good of a styling in most other salons. No more than 20 minutes, a few snips, and then an uneven trim.
Don