new thread
I'm confused. I've had long hair forever. Never above my shoulders,never quite mid-back, with long bangs or "wings". Seems like I'd know this by now, but I need some explanation. I see references on this board and elsewhere to "feminine" or "girls'" cuts vs "masculine" or "boys'" cuts where there is little or no difference in the length of the hair. My basic question... What's the difference? I'm sure I'm just old school, but, to me, long=feminine, short=masculine. To me, the major difference is how it is styled. Here, feminine = rollers, curling irons, updo's and high ponytails. Masculine = natural, ponytail at the hairline. So, especially for any hairdressers out there, what's the difference?
Gail, why does there have to be a difference? Hair is hair, we all have it. Some have better hair than others. All in all there should not be a gender line drawn for hair styles/lengths. If you say that feminine=long and masculine=short what do you classify these millions of women with super short and buzzed cuts? I seriously doubt that they are all dykes and lesbians and the guys with long hair are certainly not all gay and trying to be feminine. If you have nice hair it should not matter the length or style as long as you keep it well groomed and neat. Unfortunately in our society there are too many ignorant and misled people that don't realize that the hair and clothes do not make the person. These people automatically label and stereotype people that are a little different in appearance before they know the person and that is a sad shame. Anyway, I am all for any length / style of hair for guys and girls. Nothing should be strictly feminine or masculine. This distinction is what drives the sexes apart and ruins many relationships.
Actually, if you are a guy with long hair, gay men are most apt to think you are straight. ;-)
I think Bill is right. When I had short hair, or a shaved head I was hit on by homosexual men *all* the time. Now that my hair is longer it never happens, although I do get hit on by a lot more women.
I didn't mind getting hit on by guys, it was flattering, but I don't play for that team. Now that I've gotten my hair issues worked out, I love the attention that I get by my heterosexual couterparts.
kilgore
I'm sure I'm just old school, but, to me, long=feminine, short=masculine.
I doub't you are old school, as historically, there are many time periods when men had long and very long hair, and I suspect short hair has been 'fashionable' for women on and off for a very long time, I know very few women with long hair. Rather than call yourself 'old school' call yourself bigoted!
That last sentence re "bigoted" was uncalled-for, "Martin" (if you're
worthy of having a name, that is), and you know it. You wrongfully
led the lady down a garden path of apparent discussion, only to sink
your viper's teeth into her with the word "bigoted". Your last sentence was unjustified in its viciousness, and that's that!!
Believe it, "Martin"!!!!!
Yours most angrily,
OM
****************************************************
Is bigoted not defined as an unjustified view, prefering one type of person over another, based purely on appearance,
If I have the definition wrong I do appologize, but Someone is welcome to find a definition more suited.
Martin
Your definition is quite correct. I think the point some of us are trying to make is that there are better ways of handling the argument. Part of the 'longhair discrimination' problem is that some people refuse to accept us as we are; they use their influence or authority to try to make us change to suit them... to impose their intolerance on us. I didn't really detect much 'intolerance' in gail's original post... just an innocent question based on a perception that may differ from ours. As longhairs, if we expect people to tolerate us with our differences, we must also tolerate others with their differences- in this case, of opinion. Resorting to name calling just brings bad energy to this forum. As far as I know, this is supposed to be a supportive community.
Your final remark was completely uncalled for. Just because someone does not share your views does not make them a bigot. And calling people names without provocation is one of the surest ways to make them into enemies, which none of us need.
Please allow me to add: when expressing a difference of opinion with someone- about length of hair for instance... always address them as though they were your best friend. First, they are WAY more likely to listen to (read) what you have to say. Second, those of us eavesdropping on your posts will take what you have to say now and in the future much more seriously. The only person you degrade by name calling is yourself. Peace.
Regardless of ones biological sex, all men and women have both masculine and feminine traits. It seems that durring WWI and WWII and even during the Korean war men had to have short hair for work and perhaps even the image of John Wayne fostered the stereo typical "macho" image. I think there have always been closet long hair males who secretly wanted long hair but were afraid to grow it because of the society of the times. Today men and women are free to explore and experiment with hair and clothing styles of both sexes. There are men who have both ears pearced and some people don't like it and some do. However, that does not make anyonw bigoted. In my opinion, its just a matter of acceptance of ones masculine/feminine side and integrate the two. Long hair is simply long hair and if it feels and looks good, go for it. I think long hair is great. I am 54 years old and have hair almost to the small of my back. I use to get teased but people at work simply accept me. I wear it in a braid down my back. I hope this helps.
It would be much more appropriate to say that males and females both have *human* traits. Hair is not intrinsically masculine or feminine. There wasn't even an association of hair as male or female in most ancient cultures- Sumerian noblemen wore their hair knotted into a bun, Harappan men wore their hair long, ditto for ancient Chinese, virtually all Native American tribes, etc.
There was actually something much more sinister at work here. Long hair on men fell out of fashion among people of European descent in the early 1800's. After a time (and completely ignoring their forebears of not many years earlier), the same people of European descent came to view men with long hair as 'savages' or uncultured, and obviously inferior to themselves- witness the persecution of Asian Indians, Chinese, and Native Americans in the Victorian Period (and later, of course). It became yet another weapon in the imperialist's arsenal of self-justification. When the 1960's counterculture adopted long hair, this did nothing to remove the view of long hair as a sign of an uncivilized nature.
With notable exceptions, I don't believe most long-haired men (not the ones I've met, anyway) view themselves as feminine at all, nor does the long hair make them so, any moreso than short hair makes a woman masculine... unless, I suppose, they wear big fluffy pink bows or something like that to intentionally look feminine. For instance, I wear long hair both by personal preference and as a reflection of my heritage (part Choctaw Indian). Individuals can be masculine or feminine... hair is just human.
MJ