PDA

View Full Version : Article



SimplyDashing
July 31st, 2009, 08:47 AM
Thought y'all might find this article interesting.

Notice it says women cut their hair shorter cause it costs less in hair care products...mmm'ya. :confused:

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Hair+length+shear+economic+indicator/1848886/story.html

nicolina
July 31st, 2009, 09:05 AM
:D I would have thought any short-term saving in product use would be offset by the short-term cost of getting it cut.

sweet*things
July 31st, 2009, 09:17 AM
Ridiculous. Women with short hair tend to use all sorts of mousses and gels and pomades, etc. to get their styles to behave. Short hair requires two to three times the amount of product as long hair, in my experience.

Also I use the same amount of shampoo whether I have short or long hair, because I have the same amount of scalp. I do use more conditioner, but only a little more. Any alleged savings in product costs would be immediately eaten up by increased trips to the hairdresser for cuts to stay short.

They could make a case that in times of economic hardship more women wish to appear "serious" and "business-like", but in my opinion there's nothing more businesslike than a bun. I've worked the scary librarian vibe to my advantage in an office more than once. :D

enfys
July 31st, 2009, 11:11 AM
Isn't it more related to the celebrities haircuts that they're copying? Since they refer to them so often in the article, and I'm guessing they didn't cut their hair due to being short on cash...

marzipanthecat
July 31st, 2009, 11:21 AM
Interesting. This reminds me of light-hearted and humourous (but it did have a point) article I read many years ago (it was in the days before the internet), where the writer was talking about a recession resulting in women's hair being cut shorter, and hemlines going up. I seem to recall the person was citing the Great Depression (1930s) and then the 1970s, and this article was written during the 1980s (there was a big rise in unemployment in the UK at that time). Mind you, I still think getting hair cut short is a fashion choice more than anything else.

I certainly spend a lot less on hair products than any of my friends with short hair. I don't use gel or hairspray or hair clay or whatever. I don't pay for regular haircuts!

23_seconds
July 31st, 2009, 11:33 AM
||||||||||

nowxisxforever
July 31st, 2009, 11:49 AM
Probably a lot of their impression of short hair being less maintenance and less expensive is that they're assuming that long hair is either extensions or the entirety of the length is treated the same as someone with short hair. So for example, where we might use a small amount of shampoo on our scalps, "standard" hair care suggests using shampoo on the *entire* length, which then requires excessive conditioning and product to cover up the dryness, and it takes longer to blow-dry, straighten, curl, more expensive to bleach, dye, perm-- not everyone with "long" hair treat their hair as we tend to.

So if you're taking that at absolute face value, assuming the short and long hair is treated the same, yes, it's cheaper for the short hair-- just by virtue of the necessity for more product with longer hair whilst practicing "standard" care.

For us? We're probably the most thrifty hair-owners of our time, short of folk who buzz their own hair and use WO. Minusing hairtoys and experiments, of course :silly:

Beatnik Guy
July 31st, 2009, 11:54 AM
and this article was written during the 1980sPrincess Di effect maybe? :rolleyes:

talervo
July 31st, 2009, 12:40 PM
The first thing I thought of was the flappers. So maybe it's not really a recession thing, it's an independence thing. The short hair from the depression era came out of the flappers fashion of the 20's, not because it was cheaper to have short hair.

They did mention short hair being more "man-like" in the article. There was a recent fashion trend for girlie-girl. Maybe it's swinging towards macho-girl? (hee, hee) The 80's clothes were supposedly coming back, right?

Maybe Britney Spears was just ahead of her time?

teela1978
July 31st, 2009, 12:54 PM
To me the article is talking more about how during a stressful situation, women tend to chop off their hair. The recession is stressful to many many people, so therefore lots of hair probably is being chopped off, not for monetary reasons, but more for 'I can't control much, but I can control my hair' reasons... I know I've been there before.

SimplyDashing
July 31st, 2009, 02:12 PM
To me the article is talking more about how during a stressful situation, women tend to chop off their hair. The recession is stressful to many many people, so therefore lots of hair probably is being chopped off, not for monetary reasons, but more for 'I can't control much, but I can control my hair' reasons... I know I've been there before.

Interesting viewpoint. Is this sort of the same thing as when one breaks up with a SO and cuts his/her hair off (control or freedom I suppose)??

BTW, was in San Diego for Comic con (which was amazing) and just have to say I love your city! Was walking around Balboa park at night..it was fabulous!

Longlocks3
July 31st, 2009, 02:32 PM
WOW our economy is screwed! It takes forever to grow hair back :p

Seriously, maybe I do spend more on hair toys but not getting a haircut saves me tons. Why go spend money on a hair cut if you're broke?

heatherdazy
July 31st, 2009, 03:24 PM
I would say this article is accurate to some extent. Not all women with long hair are LHCers! I have many clients from BSL to hip length who spend gobs of time blowdrying, flatironing, and on coloring plus money on giant liters of conditioner, heat protectants, etc.

nowxisxforever
July 31st, 2009, 03:30 PM
I would say this article is accurate to some extent. Not all women with long hair are LHCers! I have many clients from BSL to hip length who spend gobs of time blowdrying, flatironing, and on coloring plus money on giant liters of conditioner, heat protectants, etc.

I thought that was probably the case, so far as non-LHC members are concerned having about the same haircare as lots of shorties.

halo_tightens
July 31st, 2009, 03:43 PM
I know that I'm definitely spending less on my hair now that I've started growing it out. When I kept my hair in a "fashionable" short 'do, I had to spend about 80 dollars each time I went to my salon to have the cut refreshed and multiple colors foiled in. Then, at home, I had to have all kinds of products to make my hair keep the shape I wanted, plus lots of shampoo and conditioner to wash them out afterwards... plus all the time spent on daily drying, straightening, and styling.

Heck, all I need now is some decent conditioner, a few dabs of shampoo, and some oil. I'm seriously considering starting to color with henna, but that will still be far less expensive than what I was spending before to torture my poor hair. :)

brista
July 31st, 2009, 03:52 PM
I read many years ago (it was in the days before the internet), where the writer was talking about a recession resulting in women's hair being cut shorter, and hemlines going up. I seem to recall the person was citing the Great Depression (1930s) and then the 1970s, and this article was written during the 1980s (there was a big rise in unemployment in the UK at that time). Mind you, I still think getting hair cut short is a fashion choice more than anything else.

I've heard this before too. I think it probably ends up having less to do with perceived money savings and more to do with exerting control in an otherwise uncontrollable world, as teela1978 said. A haircut is a visible choice that you have made.

teela1978
July 31st, 2009, 05:00 PM
Interesting viewpoint. Is this sort of the same thing as when one breaks up with a SO and cuts his/her hair off (control or freedom I suppose)??

BTW, was in San Diego for Comic con (which was amazing) and just have to say I love your city! Was walking around Balboa park at night..it was fabulous!

I love San Diego too. I grew up here, left for about 6 years and have been back almost a year. It's fantastic to be back :)

adiapalic
July 31st, 2009, 05:09 PM
My sister gets her hair dyed and cut every now and then, and she has spent way more than me in taking care of her hair simply from the salon costs.

adiapalic
July 31st, 2009, 05:10 PM
Interesting viewpoint. Is this sort of the same thing as when one breaks up with a SO and cuts his/her hair off (control or freedom I suppose)??

BTW, was in San Diego for Comic con (which was amazing) and just have to say I love your city! Was walking around Balboa park at night..it was fabulous!

Balboa park is gorgeous! I was there this past June.:D I wish I could have went to the Comic-Con :(

KiwiLiz
July 31st, 2009, 05:17 PM
Hmmmph, to me this article sounds like advertising for hair stylists.

I would have thought people were more likely to avoid changing their hair during a recession, since it's so expensive to do so. Perhaps a hair stylist recognised this and had their journalist friend put another spin on it -to say shorter cuts are more appropriate during a recession, claiming the cost less, while also cashing in on the cult of celebrity by saying all the celebrities are doing (so you have to do it to, of course). Then people think "OMG i have to go get my hair cut because of the recession/Rachel Mc Adams did it!", which equates to more money for hair stylists.

So we all better go get our hair cut just to make sure every one knows we're taking the recession very seriously :P

Perhaps the cosmic power of all the LHC members cutting their beloved hair will pull us out of recession!

going gray
July 31st, 2009, 05:45 PM
That is one idiotic article, my hair is short now & I have SO many more products for it, when it was longer 21" I used nothing but a shampoo, conditioner & a leave-in conditioner. Plus consider all the trims you need to keep your short style!

heatherdazy
July 31st, 2009, 07:23 PM
Hmmmph, to me this article sounds like advertising for hair stylists.

I would have thought people were more likely to avoid changing their hair during a recession, since it's so expensive to do so. Perhaps a hair stylist recognised this and had their journalist friend put another spin on it -to say shorter cuts are more appropriate during a recession, claiming the cost less, while also cashing in on the cult of celebrity by saying all the celebrities are doing (so you have to do it to, of course). Then people think "OMG i have to go get my hair cut because of the recession/Rachel Mc Adams did it!", which equates to more money for hair stylists.

So we all better go get our hair cut just to make sure every one knows we're taking the recession very seriously :P

Perhaps the cosmic power of all the LHC members cutting their beloved hair will pull us out of recession!
Yeah, because hairstylists are all in this cult together where we conspire about how to force people into short hair with as much styling as possible. :rolleyes:

KiwiLiz
August 1st, 2009, 03:59 AM
Yeah, because hairstylists are all in this cult together where we conspire about how to force people into short hair with as much styling as possible. :rolleyes:

Uh, I said *a* hair stylist, if I meant all hairstylists are in a cult conspiring too force people with short hair with as much styling as possible, I would have said "all hairstylists are in a cult conspiring too force people with short hair with as much styling as possible". So yeah, please read my posts and consider what it is that I'm actually saying, before you respond and roll your eyes at me, thanks :)

It's really not such an absurd idea, hair dressing is a business after all -most businesses suffer during a recession, especially ones providing non-essential goods and services.

So why couldn't it be publicity to get people back into salons?

RoseRedDead
August 1st, 2009, 06:22 AM
I disagree with this article on many levels... My hair has never been easier to take care of... Like people have mentioned, not all of us don't chemically treat/flat iron/curl/what have you our hair... Those of us who avoid these things will (most likely) spend less money.

I know that I'm not a Rockefeller, and I tend to be frugal, and I have frugal ways of keeping my long hair beautiful.

To those who think that the economy (which is now becoming a buzzword to goad us to do things which may or may not be beneficial to ourselves) has any control over my hair, you are wrong.

Leenda
August 1st, 2009, 06:47 AM
It’s true – not only do I spend a lot less money on my hair than I did when I had a short style that required almost constant maintenance; I spend a lot less time on my hair, too.

Fewer products, less visits to a salon (I do still get my ends trimmed periodically), and because I wear my hair up almost all the time, less washing (weekly vs daily).

Shampoo, condition, mousse, blowdry, curling iron, hairspray – repeat daily. Looking back, I wonder “WHAT was I thinking?”

Next time someone asks why I don’t get my hair cut, I’ll tell them we’re in a recession – I can’t afford to! :D

florenonite
August 1st, 2009, 04:44 PM
Isn't it more related to the celebrities haircuts that they're copying? Since they refer to them so often in the article, and I'm guessing they didn't cut their hair due to being short on cash...

Rachel McAdams has only got two movies she's promoting right now, she has to save money on her hair :p


Hmmmph, to me this article sounds like advertising for hair stylists.

I would have thought people were more likely to avoid changing their hair during a recession, since it's so expensive to do so. Perhaps a hair stylist recognised this and had their journalist friend put another spin on it -to say shorter cuts are more appropriate during a recession, claiming the cost less, while also cashing in on the cult of celebrity by saying all the celebrities are doing (so you have to do it to, of course). Then people think "OMG i have to go get my hair cut because of the recession/Rachel Mc Adams did it!", which equates to more money for hair stylists.

So we all better go get our hair cut just to make sure every one knows we're taking the recession very seriously :P

Perhaps the cosmic power of all the LHC members cutting their beloved hair will pull us out of recession!

That's an interesting theory. If I was in a position in which the recession was really affecting my life (thank goodness I'm not at the moment, and, hey, the bank says the recession's over! :p) my hair would be the last thing on my mind. If I were less hair-obsessed I might hack it off in a fit, but I wouldn't pay someone else to cut it off for me because that would involve spending money.

Of course, I've never had a particular "short-hair mentality" towards my hair. I rarely used styling products (they never brought out my waves *sulk*), only shampooed my scalp, wore my hair up regularly, and never washed daily. Now that my hair's longer, if I'm using conventional products I can manage to wash 1-2 times a week, but if I'm using a shampoo bar I need to do it every 2-3 days. However, with the 'poo bar I don't need conditioner, just oil, so I'm saving a miniscule amount of money :p

I can see someone who shampoos the length, straightens, &c. cutting from waist to shoulder to make it easier, but any shorter and I can't see how it would be easier :shrug:

Elettaria
August 1st, 2009, 05:50 PM
I think the article is talking sense. It's not comparing short hair to the sort of long hair people on this board have. It's talking about taking the average haircut, which is pretty short and high-maintenance to begin with, and going shorter. If you go from a chin-length bob to a pixie, you're going to need just as many haircuts and you're still going to be treating it as you would short hair, but you will be using a bit less of each product, and more importantly, you will think you are using less. The rest of the theories - people tend to cut their hair under stress, more masculine cut when feeling the need to be assertive - seem perfectly fine. I can't see any particular reason to doubt the researchers' findings.

HairColoredHair
August 1st, 2009, 06:07 PM
Hrm... my roomie cuts her own hair and uses less conditioner than I do, true.

But she uses the same amount of shampoo (or more, since she does her whole head, not like she has a choice, :lol: ) and she buys gels and the expensive conditioners to counteract what she does to her hair with dyes... I think we even out, since I have my conditioner addiction.

Wicked Princess
August 1st, 2009, 08:24 PM
I, also, can attest that those of us with longer locks require less maintenance than a shorter hairstyle, but the article ALSO brought up the theories that :

- a shorter hair cut is a way of channeling independence
- altering one's appearance can help boost one's personal mood. We can't control a global economy, but we can control our appearance - that sort of attitude :)

Really, the only thing I can find wrong with this article was that it perpetuated the idea that long hair requires tons of product. This isn't too illogical for people who haven't learned as much about hair as us LHC members have. They're just like, "Oh, well short hair requires X amount of product and X amount of time, so longer hair must be require 2X amount of product and 2X amount of time!" The rest of it, such as why women would cut their hair, does seem like a reasonable trend for hard, economic times.

SimplyLonghair
August 1st, 2009, 08:36 PM
Well the article might have validity for some, but not for me. Long before LHC I spent more time and money on short hair. :p
But that is a result of my hair type. It needs either length or product to keep it under control. I choose length, it makes me happier. :happydance:

florenonite
August 1st, 2009, 09:50 PM
I, also, can attest that those of us with longer locks require less maintenance than a shorter hairstyle, but the article ALSO brought up the theories that :

- a shorter hair cut is a way of channeling independence
- altering one's appearance can help boost one's personal mood. We can't control a global economy, but we can control our appearance - that sort of attitude :)

Really, the only thing I can find wrong with this article was that it perpetuated the idea that long hair requires tons of product. This isn't too illogical for people who haven't learned as much about hair as us LHC members have. They're just like, "Oh, well short hair requires X amount of product and X amount of time, so longer hair must be require 2X amount of product and 2X amount of time!" The rest of it, such as why women would cut their hair, does seem like a reasonable trend for hard, economic times.

Independence being copying celebrities? /sarcasm

I mean, I think cutting one's hair as a show of independence is a valid argument; however the article placed a little too much emphasis on the fact that celebrities were cutting their hair short for me to accept the argument that women were cutting their hair short as a show of independence. If celebrities and the fashion industry were encouraging long hair, then cutting one's hair might be a demonstration of independence. However, when they go on about Rachel McAdams cutting her hair into a bob and then saying women are cutting their hair as a demonstration of their independence, I think "no, they're not, they're cutting it so they can be clones of Rachel McAdams". An oversimplification, I know, but so is saying that women cut their hair to demonstrate their independence.

blondecat
August 2nd, 2009, 01:51 AM
1. My independance has always been shown by my having long hair.

I'm known for it [long hair]

2.My hair as a child was a fluffy puff ball. And it needed copious amounts of slick to get it to even look like hair, now that it is long, it just goes up into a plait or bun, no product, nothing.

Yep, it's definately cheeper. For me.

toodramatik
August 2nd, 2009, 02:08 AM
I cut my hair every time I need something to control.

It's a lot safer than cutting something else.

Also, I think the article is referring to women with short stylish her vs women with long stylish hair. My sister's hair is waist length, she uses a lot of shine serum/hair spray/ gel what have you, because she follows trends, definitely more than I use for my pixie.

I think, especially in teenage years, a girl cutting her hair very short is a sign of both independence and a desire to control things. While you're a teenager, all guys think short hair is ugly, and most girls think so, too. Cutting it is a sign of independence, at this age, at least.

Elettaria
August 2nd, 2009, 04:49 AM
Really, the only thing I can find wrong with this article was that it perpetuated the idea that long hair requires tons of product.

Er, no, it didn't. It didn't mention long hair at all. It was all about cutting hair shorter. We live in a culture where shoulder length is considered long, and the average length for women is probably about chin length, or between shoulder and chin if you look at young women only. They're not talking about women changing from a length where little product is needed because the hair is so long to a length where more product is needed because hair is fairly short. They're talking about women changing from fairly short hair to shorter hair, and where the only change in product usage is that a less is required because there's less hair. I've just double-checked this with my partner, whose hair has been through the average hair lengths for women (longest is about shoulders, shortest has been shaved), and who uses hair product in a way characteristic of both men and women today, and he agrees. Everyone on this board with long hair belongs to a small minority, and our hair care patterns are far from the norm. If you research the findings of hairdressers about what is common at any one moment, which is what has been done here, we're not even going to register on their radar.

If you want to look at a fashion of women's hair being cut from long to short, the twenties would be more useful. That signified a far greater social change. Short hair was new and exciting, so people focused on the good points about it. We have long hair by choice and love looking after it, but there will have been a great many women who found long hair hot, unwieldy, and bothersome, and who found it immensely liberating to have shorter hair. We're the opposite phenomenon: short hair for women is the norm, so we're the ones breaking away now, harking back to older traditions, and we're a much smaller group.

You could compare us to menstrual products usage. For centuries reusable products were the only option, then disposables came along and were revolutionary, then after a while everyone got used to disposables and started focusing on the negative aspects, and a small but enthusiastic groups of women have taken to using reusables. They're a growing group, but they're still so small that they probably barely make a dent in the disposables market, and rarely get included in overall research.

I'm curious as to why this article is provoking so much hostility here. People are responding as if long hair has been attacked. It hasn't; it hasn't even been brought up.

Wicked Princess
August 2nd, 2009, 05:10 AM
Independence being copying celebrities? /sarcasm

I mean, I think cutting one's hair as a show of independence is a valid argument; however the article placed a little too much emphasis on the fact that celebrities were cutting their hair short for me to accept the argument that women were cutting their hair short as a show of independence. If celebrities and the fashion industry were encouraging long hair, then cutting one's hair might be a demonstration of independence. However, when they go on about Rachel McAdams cutting her hair into a bob and then saying women are cutting their hair as a demonstration of their independence, I think "no, they're not, they're cutting it so they can be clones of Rachel McAdams". An oversimplification, I know, but so is saying that women cut their hair to demonstrate their independence.

...yeah, I read the article again and didn't see anything in the article that directly stated that women were copying celebrities' hairstyles. I read that celebrities were also cutting their hair short.

Maybe you mistook what I said? I'm not implying that all women should cut their hair as a sign of independence, nor did I write it directly. There is a major difference between being independent and being a conformist. And even then, those things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive (although it would be rather weird to see them together, haha). Just because we, as people who like long hair, choose to grow our hair long, does not mean that we are the only people who are independent.

I read the article and all I took from it was that during an economic hardship, people desire personal change and one way to bring about that change is to alter one's appearance...like a simple hair cut. It is their hair, after all, and if cutting it shorter, or even cutting it to look like a celebrity makes them happy, it's unjust of anyone to judge them for it.

Wicked Princess
August 2nd, 2009, 05:18 AM
Er, no, it didn't. It didn't mention long hair at all. It was all about cutting hair shorter. We live in a culture where shoulder length is considered long, and the average length for women is probably about chin length, or between shoulder and chin if you look at young women only. They're not talking about women changing from a length where little product is needed because the hair is so long to a length where more product is needed because hair is fairly short. They're talking about women changing from fairly short hair to shorter hair, and where the only change in product usage is that a less is required because there's less hair.

When I made my post, this is what I was referring to, a quote from the article:

"When there's uncertainty about the economy, women realize they can't spend as much time on their hair, or as much money on (hair) products, and as a result tend to go for shorter styles."

Maybe it's my math background, but the "as a result tend to go for shorter styles" that follows the supposed realization that women can't spend time/money/etc on their hair seemed to be implying a relationship with time, product, and hair length.

I really didn't see that as an attack, so I'm not sure if I'm one of the people you were referring to as hostile, or not. All I was saying was that, since coming here to the LHC, I learned that a lot of what people think of as "normal" hair care and "normal" hair care product consumption is not necessarily the "best" hair care or the "best" hair care products. And that, to me, is sad. Maybe I've been reading all the testaments of women realizing they didn't need so many hair products wrong. :confused:

Elettaria
August 2nd, 2009, 06:12 AM
It wasn't you, it was more all the other indignant objections to the article, which really surprised me.

I agree about the correlation you mention. I think they're applying it for hair up to a certain length, say shoulder length or thereabouts, since this will cover most of the women in the area they're surveying. I think the correlation works up to a certain length, then past that hair care turns into a totally different animal. We're in the totally different animal category. Where you switch from one mindset to the other varies, and people on this forum are likely to switch to the long hair mindset at an earlier stage since this forum is geared that way and presents substantially long hair as the main goal. The people being surveyed for this article are in the short hair mindset, where you're going to be having regular haircuts and using a great deal of product whatever your hair length (although hair is mostly going to be pretty short by our standards).

Something else to remember is that women generally shorten their hair as they get older. The media focuses attention on young, attractive women, so that we see those disproportionately represented. However, research amongst hairdressers will cover all women, including the older ones who are extremely likely to have short hair. My mother, for instance, is 65 and has hair that is a few inches long. She has it cut and coloured frequently, once a month I think, and uses quite a lot of product on it. I average one haircut a year, don't use commercial hair dyes, and my idea of exciting products is a cider vinegar/chamomile tea rinse and a dab of coconut oil as a leave-in. I'm not in the target group. She is.

I also agree that the "normal" view of what needs to be done with hair tends not to be that good for the hair, involves a great deal of fuss, and doesn't seem particularly liberating to me. I suppose that if people are having fun, more power to them, though so many principles of good hair care seem to be practically secrets.

Wicked Princess
August 2nd, 2009, 07:01 AM
Gyah! Why does beauty have to be so subjective?! I have officially decided that it is too hard to navigate the waters of what is "long" hair for the LHC, "long" hair for non-LHC people, what is beautiful in terms of hair, etc! This decision affected by the fact that it's 6 o'clock in the morning where I am and the fact that I'm going to have a cookie and go to sleep!

:cookie: :sleep: Smilies for emphasis.

You're right, of course, Elettaria. I didn't even take into account the existence of the "totally different animal" category. I too often forget that what I consider long, and what others consider long can differ drastically. For the most part, people with hair over a yard long is relatively rare, so I suppose they can effectively eliminate the minority that is us, since we sort of...break from the scope of this article on hair lengths, hehe. By a few yards, in some cases!

P.S. Using the phrase "different animal" in conjunction with references to hair made me imagine my hair as a wild beast that must be braided and fed oils in order to be appeased. I have a wild imagination when I am so tired!

noelgirl
August 2nd, 2009, 07:20 AM
I can only speak for my own brand of crazy, but when I'm stressed I go into a mode where I deny myself things, even if I don't have to. Whether the stress is my fault or not, I punish myself for some imagined fault. I don't eat well if at all. I deny myself certain daily pleasures. And I've done things to my hair that I've come to regret in the mentality that I don't deserve to have the hair I really want. LHC has made me a lot more self-aware about that last one, and it's made me examine the self-destructive impulse as a whole. So while there are those who genuinely want shorter hair, and a POV like mine is probably less common, I'm probably not the only one who reacts to stress this way.

florenonite
August 2nd, 2009, 08:54 AM
...yeah, I read the article again and didn't see anything in the article that directly stated that women were copying celebrities' hairstyles. I read that celebrities were also cutting their hair short.

Maybe you mistook what I said? I'm not implying that all women should cut their hair as a sign of independence, nor did I write it directly. There is a major difference between being independent and being a conformist. And even then, those things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive (although it would be rather weird to see them together, haha). Just because we, as people who like long hair, choose to grow our hair long, does not mean that we are the only people who are independent.

I read the article and all I took from it was that during an economic hardship, people desire personal change and one way to bring about that change is to alter one's appearance...like a simple hair cut. It is their hair, after all, and if cutting it shorter, or even cutting it to look like a celebrity makes them happy, it's unjust of anyone to judge them for it.

It doesn't say something like "women are cutting their hair because celebrities are", but it does say:


Following the follicles of such celebs as Rachel McAdams, Rihanna and Solange Knowles, all of whom have shortened or shaved their hair in recent weeks, Canadian stylists report women are cropping their coifs in scissor-dulling numbers.

which to me implies a cause and effect relationship.

I'm confused as to how you inferred that I thought you said all women ought to cut their hair to show independence. I was agreeing that in and of itself, it can be true. In the 20s women did it, women, particularly young women and teenagers, do it today. It's not something all women do or all women ought to do (if all women ought to do it it's not really showing independence, is it? :p). However, if an article is arguing that people are cutting their hair to show independence and because of the economy, I see no reason to bring in celebrities. To me, copying celebrities isn't independence, it's conformity. There's nothing wrong with that, I just get the impression that the article's trying to portray it as something it's not.

In short, if you're looking at this as an essay (which it is, albeit an informal one), the thesis is good, that some women do cut their hair due to the economy or as a sign of independence, but the supporting points, IMO, are lacking somewhat.

Oh, and I think my hair's an example of both independence and conformity :p I'm growing it long and treating it nicely, and wearing it how I like rather than how fashion dictates. However, I don't see myself ever dying it an unnatural colour, because I want to "fit in", so to speak.

PseudoScot
August 2nd, 2009, 09:22 AM
Honestly I think a lot of us 'long hairs' think we spend less on hair products because we've spent time learning/obsessing/reading about it and have pared down our routines just to what we need. The article has some validity and does not threaten me as a long hair in the sense that I think some long hairs and some shorter haired folks spend quite a lot on their hair care. We want to think that because we're on a site and have figured it all out we have superior knowledge and of course more streamlined routines :P In many cases that is probably true.

That said, there are a lot of shorter haired ladies who wash and go, who don't use a whole bottle of conditioner in a week or less, who don't use normal or exotic oils, or buy pure shea butter, or sulfate free shampoos or masks and treatments for their hair when some long hairs do. Those are not cheap habits. And why is no one factoring in the cost of hair toys? That can alone equal one salon trip for a shorter hair lady!

There are also many long hairs who do not get it cut as frequently, or spend all the products on mousses and sprays and coloring, etc.

I guess what I am trying to say is that it's like a lot of things - one can't categorically say 'x is better than x' or 'this group spends more/less money' on something because there's a lot of variation within each group. And while I like my long hair and simple routine, that doesn't really mean it's better than a short hair 'do. It's just better for me. :)

Beatnik Guy
August 2nd, 2009, 12:21 PM
It also occurred to me that this could be about extensions -- in a poor economic situation, the cost of those might be a luxury item?

Wicked Princess
August 2nd, 2009, 02:27 PM
Perhaps it was the hour, florenonite, but I really thought the sarcastic comment you made was at the entirety of post, hehe. I think the biggest thing was that, when I read the article, I got the distinct impression that it was reporting on a "phenomena" and not so much an acknowledged trend. As in, "Oh look, there are crazy high numbers of women with shorter hairstyles and nobody set the trend!" as opposed to, "Hey, we should all cut our hair because [so and so] did!" I'm wondering now if, due to the the laziness of the author, celebrities' hair were used as examples as opposed to actual examples of hair salon revenue from all over Canada/US because they are more "visible" than "the masses".

Amara
August 2nd, 2009, 03:37 PM
Didn't Tinkerbell wear a bun?

Wicked Princess
August 2nd, 2009, 03:42 PM
Didn't Tinkerbell wear a bun?


Oh, you're right! I haven't seen the cartoon in awhile and remembered as it just being kind of poofy in the back. I'll correct that, haha. :)

florenonite
August 2nd, 2009, 09:53 PM
Perhaps it was the hour, florenonite, but I really thought the sarcastic comment you made was at the entirety of post, hehe. I think the biggest thing was that, when I read the article, I got the distinct impression that it was reporting on a "phenomena" and not so much an acknowledged trend. As in, "Oh look, there are crazy high numbers of women with shorter hairstyles and nobody set the trend!" as opposed to, "Hey, we should all cut our hair because [so and so] did!" I'm wondering now if, due to the the laziness of the author, celebrities' hair were used as examples as opposed to actual examples of hair salon revenue from all over Canada/US because they are more "visible" than "the masses".

Hah, when you miss out on the majority of a post, it's time to go to bed :p

That's an interesting possibility, that they just brought up the celebrities because they're visible :shrug: