PDA

View Full Version : NYC Hair discrimination law



bumblebums
February 20th, 2019, 05:27 AM
I don't post here much anymore but saw this in the NY Times and had to share--it looks like there isn't a discussion thread on it yet (that I could find, anyway):

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/18/style/hair-discrimination-new-york-city.html

luxurioushair
February 20th, 2019, 05:38 AM
That's very nice to hear about. It's a start. It's not an issue where I live, so I was shocked when I first heard of people in the USA being discriminated against for not straightening their hair.

Begemot
February 20th, 2019, 05:38 AM
That is amazing! I'm not American but I have read about the discrimination black people face when they wear their hair natural. I can not imagine someone telling me that I must alter my hair with heat and chemicals regularly or hide it to be considered "presentable", it's just absurd and wrong. It's especially infuriating to hear how little kids have been treated :( It's shameful that this is still an issue but I'm happy to see things slowly moving in the right direction.

lithostoic
February 20th, 2019, 06:43 AM
This makes me so happy! <3 I know some of my black friends have struggled with this.

bumblebums
February 20th, 2019, 07:21 AM
Yeah, I am always kind of taken aback when people presume to comment on someone's appearance in a professional setting--I generally even avoid compliments on someone's clothes/hair/makeup/etc. at work, because those are not always welcome or well-construed. We all know how sensitive people can be. The stuff reported in that article is pretty outrageous, though. Unless you're working in food service and customers are complaining because they are finding your beard hair in their soup, hair is nobody's business but one's own.

Katsura
February 20th, 2019, 08:14 AM
I'm glad they are taking action against it. :thumbsup:

nycelle
February 20th, 2019, 08:38 AM
I live in Manhattan (NYC).

Because of all the various cultures here and races here, we're already extremely sensitive to how we handle things.

This isn't going to change anything. It's a feel good policy, nothing more.
Remember, you have to prove your were discriminated against because of your hair. That's something that's nearly impossible to prove. Like I said, feel good policy that appeases some of the Mayors voter base. Nothing more, and nothing less.

eta: There's even a caveat in this new rule- "The new guidelines do not interfere with health and safety reasons for wearing hair up or in a net, as long as the rules apply to everyone."

bumblebums
February 20th, 2019, 10:14 AM
I live in Manhattan (NYC).

Because of all the various cultures here and races here, we're already extremely sensitive to how we handle things.

This isn't going to change anything. It's a feel good policy, nothing more.
Remember, you have to prove your were discriminated against because of your hair. That's something that's nearly impossible to prove.

It isn't impossible to prove discrimination if you have a good lawyer who knows how to dig up evidence. Witnesses and audio/video can go a long way toward proving that the employer is at fault if said employer has made comments to the employee that can be proved to be discriminatory under the law.

You might be thinking of discrimination in hiring--as in, person with a certain hairstyle shows up to an interview and does not get hired. That's not what this law is about.

One of the things that's important to understand about laws is that their intent is not always relevant to their consequences--what matters is how they can be interpreted. We do not yet know what the consequences of this law will be.


Like I said, feel good policy that appeases some of the Mayors voter base. Nothing more, and nothing less.

The mayor does not pass the law--he just executes it.


eta: There's even a caveat in this new rule- "The new guidelines do not interfere with health and safety reasons for wearing hair up or in a net, as long as the rules apply to everyone."

Not sure why you think this means the law is symbolic/feel good only?

BerrySara
February 20th, 2019, 10:14 AM
I live in Manhattan (NYC).

Because of all the various cultures here and races here, we're already extremely sensitive to how we handle things.

This isn't going to change anything. It's a feel good policy, nothing more.
Remember, you have to prove your were discriminated against because of your hair. That's something that's nearly impossible to prove. Like I said, feel good policy that appeases some of the Mayors voter base. Nothing more, and nothing less.

eta: There's even a caveat in this new rule- "The new guidelines do not interfere with health and safety reasons for wearing hair up or in a net, as long as the rules apply to everyone."

It may be mostly a feel good policy and it certainly will be hard to prove hair discrimination, but for those who have been directly told to change their hair to look "professional" this gives them a leg to stand on. Especially if those directions were followed by termination if one was not to comply. Such as newscaster Brittany Noble Jones (granted she was no where near NYC):

https://www.today.com/style/brittany-noble-was-told-her-natural-hair-was-unprofessional-fired-t146857

I think policies like these, whether as effective as one would want it to be, still represent a shift in mindset and enhanced social awareness. And it can influence law makers in other cities or states to pass similar policies to protect those who are directly being affected. It is a starting point and a welcomed push for acceptance in my opinion.

neko_kawaii
February 20th, 2019, 10:24 AM
It was already law, this is a clarification to help enforce it. Good discussion on 1A radio show.

lapushka
February 20th, 2019, 10:25 AM
It may be mostly a feel good policy and it certainly will be hard to prove hair discrimination, but for those who have been directly told to change their hair to look "professional" this gives them a leg to stand on. Especially if those directions were followed by termination if one was not to comply. Such as newscaster Brittany Noble Jones (granted she was no where near NYC):

https://www.today.com/style/brittany-noble-was-told-her-natural-hair-was-unprofessional-fired-t146857

I think policies like these, whether as effective as one would want it to be, still represent a shift in mindset and enhanced social awareness. And it can influence law makers in other cities or states to pass similar policies to protect those who are directly being affected. It is a starting point and a welcomed push for acceptance in my opinion.

That things like this can even happen. Now granted, she wore twists, and not her natural curly hair, but I mean, where to draw the line? And should a boss really interfere with someone's looks? That's the key issue!

nycelle
February 20th, 2019, 10:41 AM
It isn't impossible to prove discrimination if you have a good lawyer who knows how to dig up evidence. Witnesses and audio/video can go a long way toward proving that the employer is at fault if said employer has made comments to the employee that can be proved to be discriminatory under the law.

You might be thinking of discrimination in hiring--as in, person with a certain hairstyle shows up to an interview and does not get hired. That's not what this law is about.

One of the things that's important to understand about laws is that their intent is not always relevant to their consequences--what matters is how they can be interpreted. We do not yet know what the consequences of this law will be.



The mayor does not pass the law--he just executes it.



Not sure why you think this means the law is symbolic/feel good only?

I understand exactly what this is about, but I don't want to get into a debate with your over an issue that relates to race. Let's just agree to disagree.

DaveDecker
February 20th, 2019, 11:03 AM
(I haven't searched for it or read it, so) I wonder about the wording of this law. Of course, nearly all of the expected "beneficiaries" of it would be people of color, but I wonder how it would treat the "uncut hair" of someone who is not a person of color. (Is there a gap in the law's coverage?)

bumblebums
February 20th, 2019, 11:38 AM
(I haven't searched for it or read it, so) I wonder about the wording of this law. Of course, nearly all of the expected "beneficiaries" of it would be people of color, but I wonder how it would treat the "uncut hair" of someone who is not a person of color. (Is there a gap in the law's coverage?)

Well, to interpret it as in any way race-specific would be in violation of the federal constitution (the 14th amendment). So no, I wouldn't think that there is any gap in the law's coverage. It's especially relevant that certain people of all races have uncut hair for religious observance, so they cannot be discriminated on the basis of that in any part of the US, presumably.

ETA also it's not as if it's only black people who wear their hair in cornrows or twists; there are white people who have texture in the 4 range and choose to style it that way.

BerrySara
February 20th, 2019, 11:44 AM
(I haven't searched for it or read it, so) I wonder about the wording of this law. Of course, nearly all of the expected "beneficiaries" of it would be people of color, but I wonder how it would treat the "uncut hair" of someone who is not a person of color. (Is there a gap in the law's coverage?)

The guidelines specifically mention the right of New Yorkers to maintain their “natural hair, treated or untreated hairstyles such as locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, fades, Afros, and/or the right to keep hair in an uncut or untrimmed state.”

If nearly all beneficiaries of it would be a specific group of people, it would be because that specific group experiences the greatest discrimination. The law does not apply to a specific heritage or race - those who will benefit the most are those who will find the most relief from continuous discrimination. And yes, it also covers hair in uncut or untrimmed state regardless of race.

In other words, this is a step towards equality fellow American.

elfynity
February 20th, 2019, 12:16 PM
That would be the biggest joke here in South Africa! 90% of the people here are type 4 hair. How crazy that people even have that to write about.

DaveDecker
February 20th, 2019, 12:42 PM
Well, to interpret it as in any way race-specific would be in violation of the federal constitution (the 14th amendment). So no, I wouldn't think that there is any gap in the law's coverage. It's especially relevant that certain people of all races have uncut hair for religious observance, so they cannot be discriminated on the basis of that in any part of the US, presumably.

ETA also it's not as if it's only black people who wear their hair in cornrows or twists; there are white people who have texture in the 4 range and choose to style it that way.

My curiosity was due to the way the law was characterized in the newspaper article. I agree that any race-specific interpretation would violate the US constitution. Religious observance is not the only basis for having uncut hair (see: me). Basically, my take is that every person regardless of description or reason should be allowed to wear their hair as they wish and be free of discrimination for it at work/school...



The guidelines specifically mention the right of New Yorkers to maintain their “natural hair, treated or untreated hairstyles such as locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, fades, Afros, and/or the right to keep hair in an uncut or untrimmed state.”

If nearly all beneficiaries of it would be a specific group of people, it would be because that specific group experiences the greatest discrimination. The law does not apply to a specific heritage or race - those who will benefit the most are those who will find the most relief from continuous discrimination. And yes, it also covers hair in uncut or untrimmed state regardless of race.

In other words, this is a step towards equality fellow American.

Regarding my bolding of your subquote, yes, of course.

Regarding your last sentence, I feel like I'm being punked. Am I mistaken?

blackgothicdoll
February 23rd, 2019, 01:32 AM
Are people trying to say that they feel excluded by a rule that allows people with textured hair to wear cultural styles without discrimination? Have you ever been disciplined in work or school for the way your hair naturally grows out of your head, something a person has absolutely no control of?

Try to have forward progress but people don't like that if it doesn't involve them. :/

Eta: remember the origins of proactive laws are based on problems to inspire correction. I don't believe this was to say that if you are not black you can still be discriminated for having long hair or locks. This was not the basis of the problem that prompted the movement so it was not singularly addressed, though legally cannot be ignored. It's more so that the demographic provided more data points for discrimination cases against black/African hair styles.

Though I am definitely not trying to say that no one who is not black has ever faced hair discrimination, I'm stating that this occurred often and noticeably enough to warrant action. Don't feel discluded, that's not what it's about.

KoKonut
February 23rd, 2019, 06:52 AM
The NY Times??

bumblebums
February 23rd, 2019, 09:30 AM
Are people trying to say that they feel excluded by a rule that allows people with textured hair to wear cultural styles without discrimination? Have you ever been disciplined in work or school for the way your hair naturally grows out of your head, something a person has absolutely no control of?

Try to have forward progress but people don't like that if it doesn't involve them. :/

Eta: remember the origins of proactive laws are based on problems to inspire correction. I don't believe this was to say that if you are not black you can still be discriminated for having long hair or locks. This was not the basis of the problem that prompted the movement so it was not singularly addressed, though legally cannot be ignored. It's more so that the demographic provided more data points for discrimination cases against black/African hair styles.

Though I am definitely not trying to say that no one who is not black has ever faced hair discrimination, I'm stating that this occurred often and noticeably enough to warrant action. Don't feel discluded, that's not what it's about.

I agree with the overall sentiment of your post--I think a lot of people do not understand how much of a third rail hair is for people of African descent in the US. On the other hand, there is a strain of conformism in American culture that has affected a number of people of a variety of races with long hair, as well--hippies getting forced haircuts back in the day, and any number of snide comments about long or graying hair needing to be cut, dyed, being age/gender-inappropriate, what have you. Hair is a surprisingly emotional topic for just about everyone.

ReptilianFeline
February 23rd, 2019, 11:51 AM
Our new minster of culture, Amanda Lind, have very long hair in dread locks - https://www.svt.se/kultur/amanda-lind-blir-ny-kulturminister

Some people think hair like that is dirty, but I know it isn't. My brother kept his hair like that for a while as well.

The former minister of culture was what Americans would call a black woman. I just thought about her as "the singer who went into politics for some odd reason". If her hair was natural or not, I don't know. Dark skin doesn't always mean curly hair.

Robot Ninja
February 23rd, 2019, 12:51 PM
I agree with the overall sentiment of your post--I think a lot of people do not understand how much of a third rail hair is for people of African descent in the US. On the other hand, there is a strain of conformism in American culture that has affected a number of people of a variety of races with long hair, as well--hippies getting forced haircuts back in the day, and any number of snide comments about long or graying hair needing to be cut, dyed, being age/gender-inappropriate, what have you. Hair is a surprisingly emotional topic for just about everyone.

The difference is that white people's hair is expected to conform to standards set by and for white people, but black people's hair is also expected to conform to standards set for and by white people. Are there any hairstyles that are considered "professional" for black women with 4-type hair that don't require straightening their hair? Except for maybe keeping it very short?

bumblebums
February 23rd, 2019, 01:21 PM
The difference is that white people's hair is expected to conform to standards set by and for white people, but black people's hair is also expected to conform to standards set for and by white people. <b>Are there any hairstyles that are considered "professional" for black women with 4-type hair that don't require straightening their hair? Except for maybe keeping it very short?</b>

I don't know and it's really none of my business. It's their hair, not mine.

H o n є y ❤
February 23rd, 2019, 08:33 PM
The difference is that white people's hair is expected to conform to standards set by and for white people, but black people's hair is also expected to conform to standards set for and by white people. Are there any hairstyles that are considered "professional" for black women with 4-type hair that don't require straightening their hair? Except for maybe keeping it very short?
Nope. This may be the only other hairstyle that could be accepted.

https://uternity.me/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/professional-natural-hairstyles-for-short-hair-unique-pin-by-rubae-x0-on-natural-hair-4-pinterest-of-professional-natural-hairstyles-for-short-hair.jpg

JennGalt
February 23rd, 2019, 08:47 PM
The difference is that white people's hair is expected to conform to standards set by and for white people, but black people's hair is also expected to conform to standards set for and by white people. Are there any hairstyles that are considered "professional" for black women with 4-type hair that don't require straightening their hair? Except for maybe keeping it very short?

In answer to your question:

https://youtu.be/VYbhw0sNkk8

In case I didn’t embed that correctly, here’s the link to the video:
https://youtu.be/VYbhw0sNkk8

cjk
February 23rd, 2019, 11:52 PM
Ultimately, a lot of styling can be best expressed as "it looks done intentionally."

Someone above mentioned that the styles often deemed acceptable were chosen by white folks for white folks. Basically correct.

But when you are an outlier, as so many of us are, we skirt the edge of acceptable...by necessity.

This is also a topic that comes up, often, for facial hair. Groomed is not dependent on length or texture. Long beards can be glorious and short beards can look homeless. And a mustache can look like Burt Reynolds, or look like a pornstache.

Same goes for hair.

Most who probably have issue with "black" hairstyles are thinking about outlying styles that happen to work for those with 4c hair. Similarly, I wouldn't expect to dye my blond hair into a green Mohawk, and be welcomed into the boardroom.

It would not be situationally appropriate.

Not everything needs government regulation and oversight. It's ridiculous that a hairstyle, seemingly, does.

Jo Ann
February 24th, 2019, 01:07 AM
The NY Times??

My thought, exactly.

enting
February 24th, 2019, 04:49 AM
I'm so sad and floored that this needed to have laws made about it. But since it did, I'm glad it finally made it to being a law - about time!

DaveDecker
February 24th, 2019, 10:29 AM
Are people trying to say that they feel excluded by a rule that allows people with textured hair to wear cultural styles without discrimination? Have you ever been disciplined in work or school for the way your hair naturally grows out of your head, something a person has absolutely no control of?

Try to have forward progress but people don't like that if it doesn't involve them. :/

Eta: remember the origins of proactive laws are based on problems to inspire correction. I don't believe this was to say that if you are not black you can still be discriminated for having long hair or locks. This was not the basis of the problem that prompted the movement so it was not singularly addressed, though legally cannot be ignored. It's more so that the demographic provided more data points for discrimination cases against black/African hair styles.

Though I am definitely not trying to say that no one who is not black has ever faced hair discrimination, I'm stating that this occurred often and noticeably enough to warrant action. Don't feel discluded, that's not what it's about.

It is my hope that nobody is excluded from rules/laws regarding the wearing of hair in any way that they want. Personally I've never been disciplined for having long hair, but I have been denied employment opportunities on multiple occasions (I am willing to provide examples if there is any interest).

I certainly do understand why there was impetus for such a rule/law, and I can very sympathize with those who sought to have it enacted.

Hairkay
February 24th, 2019, 01:24 PM
Nope. This may be the only other hairstyle that could be accepted.

https://uternity.me/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/professional-natural-hairstyles-for-short-hair-unique-pin-by-rubae-x0-on-natural-hair-4-pinterest-of-professional-natural-hairstyles-for-short-hair.jpg


In answer to your question:

https://youtu.be/VYbhw0sNkk8

In case I didn’t embed that correctly, here’s the link to the video:
https://youtu.be/VYbhw0sNkk8

Here's the thing about these hairstyles. There are some that still think these styles are immature. It's just that with all the conformity going on some believe that's only acceptable for childhood. There's an right of passage for changing hair from kinky curly to straight for adolescents and adults. Where I grew up those hairstyles are fine and I do wear such hair styles too.

*Wednesday*
February 24th, 2019, 01:41 PM
...
ETA also it's not as if it's only black people who wear their hair in cornrows or twists; there are white people who have texture in the 4 range and choose to style it that way.

I've never seen a "white" (European descent) person with 4 type hair and who needs to wear corn rows for reasons other than a trendy style. No. You're wrong.

lapushka
February 24th, 2019, 01:59 PM
I've never seen a "white" (European descent) person with 4 type hair and who needs to wear corn rows for reasons other than a trendy style. No. You're wrong.

I have a neighbor girl who is white (no black ancestors) and who has 3c/4a hair, light blonde too; no joke. It exists!

*Wednesday*
February 24th, 2019, 02:14 PM
I have a neighbor girl who is white (no black ancestors) and who has 3c/4a hair, light blonde too; no joke. It exists!


Bumblebum's comment. My main thing, is that white people wearing braids aren't discriminated against in the way that black people are. It's the skin color the hair and ethnicity. I know here in the US I can say. But I've never seen somebody white with 4 c hair that's walking around with the Nubian hairstyle discriminated against and the way that people of African descent are.

JennGalt
February 24th, 2019, 07:26 PM
Here's the thing about these hairstyles. There are some that still think these styles are immature. It's just that with all the conformity going on some believe that's only acceptable for childhood. There's an right of passage for changing hair from kinky curly to straight for adolescents and adults. Where I grew up those hairstyles are fine and I do wear such hair styles too.

Is that a UK thing? I grew up in an area of the US that was at the time over 90% white, less than 2% black, and within an hour’s drive of a (now defunct) neo-Nazi compound. My hair was all type 4 into my late teens, and even after a texture change and much flatironing the remaining 4ish sections would immediately revert from rain or sweat. Needless to say, I stood out and was horribly bullied as a kid, and even as an adult got some weird looks and comments. Of all the words used about my hair, “immature” was never one of them. Most commonly it was “weird,” but “nappy,” “gross,” and various synonyms for unkempt were also frequent (no matter how much effort I put into it), as were some other descriptions that are far more offensive and that I’d rather forget.

I recall a handful of other black or mixed race people from over the years in the same area. Nobody called their hair immature either, and the one who wouldn’t be seen in public without ornately braided hair was often complimented on her hair. I only recall one aside from me who straightened her hair. Oddly, no one ever seemed to care about the guys’ hair.

blackgothicdoll
February 24th, 2019, 10:05 PM
I went natural in 2010, living in the US. Both white and black people had rather nasty things to say. My mom spent more than she should have to take me to a Dominican salon every 2 weeks to have my hair presses out, she protested strongly to me going natural.

May be its a US thing, I can't say, but any Caucasians I've seen with 3c hair are considered exotic and beautiful. It's just not the same. When you have 3c 4a hair and fair skin, you look mixed and are beautiful and exotic. If you are brown with that hair, you're just brown.

When it comes to hair discrimaton, I see two sides. I joined the Navy years ago and every woman had to cut her hair to above the shoulders, every man had to be buzzed completely for boot camp. If you refuse to cut your hair, you don't join, it's a dress code. Some jobs have dress codes; you comply or you find a new job. The problem with these dress codes was that they were made for straight hair. Your hair bun most not be too big, your hair should lay flat under your cover, you cannot wear a ponytail and two strand twists are not allowed. So if you have short natural hair, what do you do? We don't have time to be fussing with our hair while on duty, therefore the rules changed just last year to allow hair styles to benefit people with textured hair.

That ramble was mainly to say that dress code isn't hair discrimination. You can't join the military with a 3 foot lime green Mohawk, and a lot of other jobs won't allow that either. Honestly, that's fair. Long hair for men is a different question, as I've had jobs in well paid and government places where men wore their hair long with no problems. But long hair or a Mohawk are styles, they're things you choose. You don't choose your hair texture. Yes, you can relax it, but should you have to?

blackgothicdoll
February 24th, 2019, 10:10 PM
I remember an old job where my white male co-worker had a forcast of my hair every morning. My box braids were nasty and no one would want to touch that. When I cutoff all my hair for a pixie cut and wore it without straightening it, he described the shorter curls as looking like q tips. Gladly he wasn't my manager, but that wasn't a fun workplace.

Frazzled
February 25th, 2019, 06:33 AM
Does this apply to men also?
I'm guessing not.

I couldn't find their specific grooming standards online, but I'd be willing to bet that if I were to apply for a job with FDNY or NYPD, the first thing they would do would be to tell me to come back after getting a haircut.

enting
February 25th, 2019, 07:06 AM
I don't think hair texture should ever be part of a dress code. Hair styles and colors I can see a job wanting to limit to fit a certain image, but that there should be so many places that specifically target these particular styles is just appalling.

(I also know a white woman with kinky curly hair that grows up and out. Hair textures and styles aren't much of a problem where I live though. Ethnicity does still unfortunately make a difference, as do gender and marital status. :mad )

nycelle
February 25th, 2019, 07:49 AM
Very wavy, and curly hair is an issue among white women as well.

We've been straightening it for years in order to look more professional. If you look around here (NYC) the majority of women who work in a corporate environment still wear their hair straight. I don't know why we do it, but I'm no better. I used to straighten my wavy hair when I was going into the office. These days, I just wear it up when I need to go in.

H o n є y ❤
February 25th, 2019, 07:53 AM
Does this apply to men also?
I'm guessing not.

I couldn't find their specific grooming standards online, but I'd be willing to bet that if I were to apply for a job with FDNY or NYPD, the first thing they would do would be to tell me to come back after getting a haircut.
Yes, it applies to men. The ban was ultimately created to curb a form of racial discrimination through the prohibition of natural (type 4) hair and hairstyles. It's focus is on race, not gender; although anybody can enjoy the benefits of the law.

Hairkay
February 25th, 2019, 08:38 AM
Is that a UK thing? I grew up in an area of the US that was at the time over 90% white, less than 2% black, and within an hour’s drive of a (now defunct) neo-Nazi compound. My hair was all type 4 into my late teens, and even after a texture change and much flatironing the remaining 4ish sections would immediately revert from rain or sweat. Needless to say, I stood out and was horribly bullied as a kid, and even as an adult got some weird looks and comments. Of all the words used about my hair, “immature” was never one of them. Most commonly it was “weird,” but “nappy,” “gross,” and various synonyms for unkempt were also frequent (no matter how much effort I put into it), as were some other descriptions that are far more offensive and that I’d rather forget.

I recall a handful of other black or mixed race people from over the years in the same area. Nobody called their hair immature either, and the one who wouldn’t be seen in public without ornately braided hair was often complimented on her hair. I only recall one aside from me who straightened her hair. Oddly, no one ever seemed to care about the guys’ hair.

I haven't experienced that in the UK. I became aware of it with "the natural hair movement" online. They don't use the word immature they just call any hairstyle that doesn't involve straightening the hair or uses any form of plaits/braids/twists as children hairstyle and complain that they don't want to look like a child.

blackgothicdoll
February 25th, 2019, 08:52 AM
Frazzled, read my post above about military haircuts. The same applies for police and uniformed jobs. That's a dress code, not discrimination. Don't get the two confused.

Robot Ninja
February 25th, 2019, 09:55 AM
Very wavy, and curly hair is an issue among white women as well.

We've been straightening it for years in order to look more professional. If you look around here (NYC) the majority of women who work in a corporate environment still wear their hair straight. I don't know why we do it, but I'm no better. I used to straighten my wavy hair when I was going into the office. These days, I just wear it up when I need to go in.

The difference is that it's still a white beauty standard. Some white women don't fit the beauty standard, and are expected to put in effort to conform, but this also applies to older women being expected to try to look younger, or fat women being expected to lose weight. With black women, they're expected to straighten their hair to make them look less black.


Frazzled, read my post above about military haircuts. The same applies for police and uniformed jobs. That's a dress code, not discrimination. Don't get the two confused.

It is discrimination if women in those jobs are allowed to have long hair but men are required to keep their hair short. The lime green mohawk example isn't discriminatory because it applies to everyone, but having different rules for men and women is.

lapushka
February 25th, 2019, 10:03 AM
Bumblebum's comment. My main thing, is that white people wearing braids aren't discriminated against in the way that black people are. It's the skin color the hair and ethnicity. I know here in the US I can say. But I've never seen somebody white with 4 c hair that's walking around with the Nubian hairstyle discriminated against and the way that people of African descent are.

She has had her fair share of trouble, though. Being told to have to "tame your hair" is worse enough - for anyone.

blackgothicdoll
February 25th, 2019, 10:11 AM
It's not discrimination, it's a uniform and dress code. Again, if one doesn't want yo comply with that, one should not join the military or police. Women and men wear (some slightly) different uniforms and most comply to the uniform standards that apply to their (biological) gender. I can't fathom how that can be thought of as discrimination. The military definitely isn't the place to be for those who don't want to meet that standard.

Zorya
February 25th, 2019, 10:23 AM
Does this apply to men also?
I'm guessing not.

I couldn't find their specific grooming standards online, but I'd be willing to bet that if I were to apply for a job with FDNY or NYPD, the first thing they would do would be to tell me to come back after getting a haircut.

As blackgothicdoll said, dress codes and discrimination are not the same thing. The police force can demand that you do not have long hair, but what this law is intended to prevent is that same police force discriminating against one TYPE of hair over another, including a shorter protective style, such as cornrows (which most rational people would describe as a very neat and hygienic hairstyle).

Separately, I want to suggest that regardless of the race of the person being told that their hair is unprofessional, it remains that certain hair textures are considered unprofessional at all. And the issue with this is that this disproportionately affects black women and other women of colour and it's naive to assert that these two ideas are inherently unrelated. If you're white and you've been told that your curly hair is "exotic" what the other person is trying to telegraph is that your hair does not look like it necessarily belongs here. Anecdotally, I can say that I am often asked what my "heritage" is, and I believe that what people are trying to ascertain is what kind of covert non-white person I am.

nycelle
February 25th, 2019, 10:27 AM
The difference is that it's still a white beauty standard. Some white women don't fit the beauty standard, and are expected to put in effort to conform, but this also applies to older women being expected to try to look younger, or fat women being expected to lose weight. With black women, they're expected to straighten their hair to make them look less black.

Yeah, I understand the difference.

My post was about how wavy/curly hair is frowned upon in a corporate environment so much so, that white women get crap for it as well. It wasn't meant to trivialize discriminatory practices towards another group.

bumblebums
February 25th, 2019, 11:57 AM
It is discrimination if women in those jobs are allowed to have long hair but men are required to keep their hair short. The lime green mohawk example isn't discriminatory because it applies to everyone, but having different rules for men and women is.

Precisely. If long hair meets the requirements of the job, it doesn't matter who is wearing it. My point throughout this thread has been that regardless of who this law was initially intended to protect, it covers everyone equally. That's how the legal system works. Laws are interpreted these days based on their text, without taking into account what the original legislators wanted to accomplish.

And yes, there is definitely something in the American culture about reifying straight hair that I am continually baffled by. A person I work with was complaining about her previous (corporate) job where she got comments from superiors about how she should straighten her hair. She is white and I think a natural blonde, and even she had to deal with this stuff. I can only imagine how much worse it gets the farther away one gets from the Gwyneth Paltrow end of the spectrum.

Robot Ninja
February 25th, 2019, 12:20 PM
It's not discrimination, it's a uniform and dress code. Again, if one doesn't want yo comply with that, one should not join the military or police. Women and men wear (some slightly) different uniforms and most comply to the uniform standards that apply to their (biological) gender. I can't fathom how that can be thought of as discrimination. The military definitely isn't the place to be for those who don't want to meet that standard.

It's discrimination because the rules are different for men and for women. And those different rules don't just apply to the military. Plenty of workplaces don't allow men to have long hair, whether overtly or more subtly, just like plenty of workplaces force women into different uniforms. And yes, you can choose not to take that job, but if those are the only jobs that are available to you, then you really can't. And you can choose to cut your hair or wear the skirt, but then you're forcing, for example, indigenous men to cut their hair to get a job, or women who aren't comfortable with a feminine presentation to wear a skirt. That's without even getting into how transgender and non-binary people fit into those dress codes.

blackgothicdoll
February 25th, 2019, 05:12 PM
It's discrimination because the rules are different for men and for women. And those different rules don't just apply to the military. Plenty of workplaces don't allow men to have long hair, whether overtly or more subtly, just like plenty of workplaces force women into different uniforms. And yes, you can choose not to take that job, but if those are the only jobs that are available to you, then you really can't. And you can choose to cut your hair or wear the skirt, but then you're forcing, for example, indigenous men to cut their hair to get a job, or women who aren't comfortable with a feminine presentation to wear a skirt. That's without even getting into how transgender and non-binary people fit into those dress codes.

I'm sorry but I can't possibly agree with that. The military is a place that involves life and death, and being on either side of that. Men who don't want to cut their hair or women who don't want to wear pants really don't need to be in that line of work. I can understand for other jobs, but I would not want to stand in the line of combat with someone who puts stock in something so utterly frivolous in comparison to being under fire, mortar, or ambush, or any duties related to providing assistance to those who are actively in combat. We have other things to worry about.

Going back to regular civilian jobs, I still disagree although I know that this is a different time and it may go back to my personal views. If someone needs a job bad enough, they'll do what it takes. I don't want to wear pantyhose and a push-up bra (hooters) but if I really needed to do it to support myself, I would. I wouldn't go apply for a job at Hooters and then complain about their uniform and say that I wanted to wear pants and a T-shirt because I'm more comfortable with that presentation of myself. I would either decide that I don't need to the job that bad, or I would do what it took. Similar to my anecdote with the military, at some point preservation becomes more important than vanity.

But to get back on topic, these are all options. You decide what clothing you like to wear, and what job you can wear it in - or you don't. But you don't decide your hair texture, you're born with that. That's the real problem. You can't, and shouldn't have to change what you are biologically born with.

BerrySara
February 25th, 2019, 05:44 PM
It's discrimination because the rules are different for men and for women. And those different rules don't just apply to the military. Plenty of workplaces don't allow men to have long hair, whether overtly or more subtly, just like plenty of workplaces force women into different uniforms. And yes, you can choose not to take that job, but if those are the only jobs that are available to you, then you really can't. And you can choose to cut your hair or wear the skirt, but then you're forcing, for example, indigenous men to cut their hair to get a job, or women who aren't comfortable with a feminine presentation to wear a skirt. That's without even getting into how transgender and non-binary people fit into those dress codes.

I think what you are describing is a bit off topic from what the hair discrimination law is intended for (please feel free to correct me if I am wrong). In a nutshell you are describing gender discrimination within the realm of dress code policies. Same rules apply to ALL women but may differ than those for men. But those for men apply to ALL men but may differ from those applied to women.

This law is to protect those who are being discriminated against within the sub group of each dress code policy based solely on say their natural hair type/texture.
For example a group of women being discriminated solely for their hair texture dispite being within the company dress code policy which lets say states that women may wear their hair down.
Or another example say the company dresscode policy allows for men to wear long hair however a specific sub group of men with type 3s/4s long hair being discriminated against and told to change their hair to look more presentable whereas men with type 1s/2s hair being allowed to wear their hair long even though both groups of men are complying with the company dress code.

It is to address discrimination against sub groups for their natural features who fall well within the acceptable dress codes but are being discriminated against for hair type.

Robot Ninja
February 25th, 2019, 05:49 PM
Going back to regular civilian jobs, I still disagree although I know that this is a different time and it may go back to my personal views. If someone needs a job bad enough, they'll do what it takes. I don't want to wear pantyhose and a push-up bra (hooters) but if I really needed to do it to support myself, I would. I wouldn't go apply for a job at Hooters and then complain about their uniform and say that I wanted to wear pants and a T-shirt because I'm more comfortable with that presentation of myself. I would either decide that I don't need to the job that bad, or I would do what it took. Similar to my anecdote with the military, at some point preservation becomes more important than vanity.


An indigenous man wanting to keep his long hair because it's a part of his culture or a gender-non-conforming woman not wanting to wear a skirt because she finds compulsory femininity oppressive is not vanity. And just because people have to follow a dress code that makes them deeply uncomfortable in order to survive (and it goes well beyond outliers like Hooters; plenty of women in customer-facing positions are expected to look attractive even if their male co-workers doing the exact same job aren't) doesn't mean it's right to force them to do so. "You don't have to take the job" is not an argument when you need a job in order to survive.

Robot Ninja
February 25th, 2019, 06:07 PM
I think what you are describing is a bit off topic from what the hair discrimination law is intended for (please feel free to correct me if I am wrong). In a nutshell you are describing gender discrimination within the realm of dress code policies. Same rules apply to ALL women but may differ than those for men. But those for men apply to ALL men but may differ from those applied to women.


I think this thread has gone beyond the specific article that started it off. Someone else brought up men with long hair. Then someone claimed that different dress codes based on gender isn't discrimination. I say it is. The Ontario Human Rights Commission seems to agree with me, at least on the subject of women being allowed to wear pants; I'm sure some guy could make a case for keeping long hair and win.

esfand
February 26th, 2019, 06:19 AM
About freakin time.

languagenut
February 28th, 2019, 11:06 PM
I've never seen a "white" (European descent) person with 4 type hair and who needs to wear corn rows for reasons other than a trendy style. No. You're wrong.

The fact that you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I had a childhood friend who was definitely white (freckled redhead) and definitely had type 4 hair! I don't know how it's affected her adult life, since we haven't been in contact since circumstances separated us as kids.

Hairkay
March 1st, 2019, 06:11 AM
The fact that you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I had a childhood friend who was definitely white (freckled redhead) and definitely had type 4 hair! I don't know how it's affected her adult life, since we haven't been in contact since circumstances separated us as kids.

When you knew her, did she use cornrows and plaits/braids to keep her hair organised?

lapushka
March 1st, 2019, 06:46 AM
When you knew her, did she use cornrows and plaits/braids to keep her hair organised?

I know my neighbor girl (blonde and type 3c/4a, white) used to wear an afro for the longest time. She then went on to grow it and did wear cornrows and box braids.

nycelle
March 1st, 2019, 06:57 AM
There's always anecdotal "evidence. Someone's friend, great grandmother, mother's aunt twice removed etc.
Sure, some white people have type 4 hair, and yes a few of those white people may put it in cornrows or box braids. That doesn't negate Wednesday's point.

Estrid
March 1st, 2019, 07:09 AM
Now I haven't read this whole thread, but I also had a blonde girl in my school with type 4 hair, she never braided it or so, usually just wore it in a ponytail (which made it look like a bun).

BerrySara
March 1st, 2019, 10:03 AM
So to summarize, Wednesday's point was that white people don't wear cornrows to manage hair. Let's say statistically the percentage of white people wearing cornrows to manage hair is negligent and therefore can be ruled out. Well the law encompasses far more than just cornrows. It address natural hair. Of any kind. As well as uncut or untrimmed hair.

I am still trying to understand what the issue with that law is that some are hinting at?
Is it a sense of exclusion?

lapushka
March 1st, 2019, 10:50 AM
So to summarize, Wednesday's point was that white people don't wear cornrows to manage hair. Let's say statistically the percentage of white people wearing cornrows to manage hair is negligent and therefore can be ruled out. Well the law encompasses far more than just cornrows. It address natural hair. Of any kind. As well as uncut or untrimmed hair.

I am still trying to understand what the issue with that law is that some are hinting at?
Is it a sense of exclusion?

Exactly. That's my idea as well!

*Wednesday*
March 1st, 2019, 11:58 AM
The fact that you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I had a childhood friend who was definitely white (freckled redhead) and definitely had type 4 hair! I don't know how it's affected her adult life, since we haven't been in contact since circumstances separated us as kids.


I did not say type 4 hair does not exist on "White" people. Following through with my entire statement as the topic... I do not see White/European people as a “people” with 4 type wearing corn rows and braids. I work in White corporate America. There is no White people walking around with rows or braids. It does not exist unless it’s fashionable for them. I don’t see grown 30+, 40+ year old White women wearing braids, plaits or cornrows. It is a culture with afro-descended people as it is part of culture and discriminated for it. It is not a culture among White America to wear these hairstyles and to have laws to protect them to do so.

*Wednesday*
March 1st, 2019, 12:02 PM
So to summarize, Wednesday's point was that white people don't wear cornrows to manage hair. Let's say statistically the percentage of white people wearing cornrows to manage hair is negligent and therefore can be ruled out. Well the law encompasses far more than just cornrows. It address natural hair. Of any kind. As well as uncut or untrimmed hair.

I am still trying to understand what the issue with that law is that some are hinting at?
Is it a sense of exclusion?


Exactly. That's my idea as well!

I'm responding to the article and a comment by the OP.

H o n є y ❤
March 1st, 2019, 12:12 PM
I did not say type 4 hair does not exist on "White" people. Following through with my entire statement as the topic... I do not see White/European people as a “people” with 4 type wearing corn rows and braids. I work in White corporate America. There is no White people walking around with rows or braids. It does not exist unless it’s fashionable for them. I don’t see grown 30+, 40+ year old White women wearing braids, plaits or cornrows. It is a culture with afro-descended people as it is part of culture and discriminated for it. It is not a culture among White America to wear these hairstyles and to have laws to protect them to do so.
Very well said.

Gwyned
March 1st, 2019, 01:17 PM
It's bizarre that laws have to be passed for people to wear their natural hair in 2019. Excuse me while I go vomit. :rolleyes:

BerrySara
March 1st, 2019, 01:32 PM
What is White Corporate America? I work in Corporate America as well for one of the largest companies within my industry but never been referred to as White corporate America.

*Wednesday*
March 1st, 2019, 01:51 PM
What is White Corporate America? I work in Corporate America as well for one of the largest companies within my industry but never been referred to as White corporate America.

Sorry BerrySara. White collar in America was what I was construing.

languagenut
March 3rd, 2019, 07:01 PM
When you knew her, did she use cornrows and plaits/braids to keep her hair organised?

No, it would have been perfectly practical if she had, but she just let it do its own thing, i.e. unruly puff.


There's always anecdotal "evidence. Someone's friend, great grandmother, mother's aunt twice removed etc.
Sure, some white people have type 4 hair, and yes a few of those white people may put it in cornrows or box braids. That doesn't negate Wednesday's point.

Well, I'm afraid saying "I haven't seen it, so you're wrong" is not a very effective way to make a point; not sure what the "point" was even supposed to be. :shrug:

MusicalSpoons
March 3rd, 2019, 09:08 PM
^ I may have misunderstood, but I think the point is that hairstyles for natural type 4 hair are not a part of white culture, and therefore there hasn't been systemic discrimination on the basis of said styles for white people. I *think*.

I'm in the 'horrified this is even a problem' camp. I kind of understand how, historically, racism came about (British schools explicitly taught that people in colonised countries were savages, for example :bigeyes: and back when people were less free to travel, there was fear of 'otherness' due to ignorance, etc) but that people and institutions are still racist nowadays absolutely blows my mind :shake:

*Wednesday*
March 4th, 2019, 08:33 AM
No, it would have been perfectly practical if she had, but she just let it do its own thing, i.e. unruly puff.



Well, I'm afraid saying "I haven't seen it, so you're wrong" is not a very effective way to make a point; not sure what the "point" was even supposed to be. :shrug:

I never said that. You are cherry picking my post and taking it out of context.


^ I may have misunderstood, but I think the point is that hairstyles for natural type 4 hair are not a part of white culture, and therefore there hasn't been systemic discrimination on the basis of said styles for white people. I *think*.

Yes. Thank you MusicalSpoons.

nycelle
March 4th, 2019, 09:20 AM
No, it would have been perfectly practical if she had, but she just let it do its own thing, i.e. unruly puff.



Well, I'm afraid saying "I haven't seen it, so you're wrong" is not a very effective way to make a point; not sure what the "point" was even supposed to be. :shrug:

The change (to existing laws) wasn't made to accommodate the occasional white person with corn rows. It was changed to address the constant discrimination a particular group feels daily. Hence, anecdotal evidence doesn't make a difference to this.

Per the article: "The change in law applies to anyone in New York City but is aimed at remedying the disparate treatment of black people; the guidelines specifically mention the right of New Yorkers to maintain their “natural hair, treated or untreated hairstyles such as locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, fades, Afros, and/or the right to keep hair in an uncut or untrimmed state.”"

*I think* this became an "issue" because a few here felt excluded? Or thought there was a gap? In the rule, even though the end result is it covers everyone.

languagenut
March 4th, 2019, 11:25 AM
Oh, okay. Thanks for explaining :).

BerrySara
March 4th, 2019, 11:45 AM
The change (to existing laws) wasn't made to accommodate the occasional white person with corn rows. It was changed to address the constant discrimination a particular group feels daily. Hence, anecdotal evidence doesn't make a difference to this.

Per the article: "The change in law applies to anyone in New York City but is aimed at remedying the disparate treatment of black people; the guidelines specifically mention the right of New Yorkers to maintain their “natural hair, treated or untreated hairstyles such as locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, fades, Afros, and/or the right to keep hair in an uncut or untrimmed state.”"

*I think* this became an "issue" because a few here felt excluded? Or thought there was a gap? In the rule, even though the end result is it covers everyone.

I am in complete agreement with you nycelle on this post. The intend of the law is to address the continuous discrimination of primarily black people for their natural hair and hair styles (as they are the group who are experiencing discrimination the most for their hair). Things got "side tracked" because of some expressing feeling excluded, which lead to the discussion explaining that the law is not exclusive but rather inclusive of all. But the original intend of law still stands.