PDA

View Full Version : Men with long hair in ponytails



omgkfclolz
October 26th, 2009, 12:41 AM
Have you ever seen a male with his hair in pony tails at a professional job? Do you consider this professional? I personally think that businesses have the right to discriminate no matter what skin color you are, or religion you represent, it's their business, it's their place of work, not yours. But...on that same token businesses try to preach "accept/tolerate" your other "white/black/asian" employees regardless of stereotypes, while at the same time won't let a long haired male work at a job based on stereotypes. That is wrong, and in that case I believe that if businesses don't want discrimination then they should not discriminate against anybody! Do you people understand what i mean? What I believe is if the wolrd ran my way, but i do realize that it doesn't so i think that if businesses open the door to one thing, they should open the business to all things. Regardless of stereotypes.

Bene
October 26th, 2009, 12:44 AM
You're saying you're ok with businesses discriminating in one way (race/religion/etc), but not in another (hair length)?


Um.... ok :bigeyes:

prittykitty
October 26th, 2009, 12:46 AM
When I was in the hospital several years ago when one of my children was born, the man who came to draw blood had a long blond ponytail. He and his hair looked very neat and very clean and he dressed very professional and acted like it. I have nothing against men with long hair. In fact my husband has hair a little past his shoulders with a slight beard and a mustache. I love the rough and rugged look he has.

Gumball
October 26th, 2009, 12:46 AM
I've worn braids, buns, hairsticks, banded ponytails, victorians, etc. do work at my last job and my current one and haven't had any adverse reactions. Most often if someone actually comments (rare, but it happens) it's on a positive note.

omgkfclolz
October 26th, 2009, 12:51 AM
You're saying you're ok with businesses discriminating in one way (race/religion/etc), but not in another (hair length)?


Um.... ok :bigeyes:
No, no, read what i wrote, i think that businesses can do whatever they want. But when businesses accept anybody no matter what race or religion they are, regardless of stereotypes, yet at the same time frown down upon men with long hair because of stereotypes then that makes them have a double standard! do you understand? But at the end of the day i think that they can choose to not hire you if your white, or if you have too many freckles on your face, it's their business. I know this seems counter productive, but i guess what i'm trying to say is businesses have double standards.

Shadow Walker
October 26th, 2009, 12:56 AM
I personally think that businesses have the right to discriminate no matter what skin color you are, or religion you represent, it's their business, it's their place of work, not yours.


But at the end of the day i think that they can choose to not hire you if your white, or if you have too many freckles on your face, it's their business.

I can't even begin to tell you how wrong this is. To suggest it's ok for businesses to discriminate against a black person simply because they're black, a woman because she's a woman, or a Muslim because they're Muslim but not ok to discriminate against a man because his hair is long? That's pretty convoluted to me, we have laws against workplace discrimination for a reason. People should be hired and treated based off of their merit, not their genetics.

omgkfclolz
October 26th, 2009, 01:02 AM
I can't even begin to tell you how wrong this is. To suggest it's ok for businesses to discriminate against a black person simply because they're black, a woman because she's a woman, or a Muslim because they're Muslim but not ok to discriminate against a man because his hair is long? That's pretty convoluted to me, we have laws against workplace discrimination for a reason. People should be hired and treated based off of their merit, not their genetics.

yeah man, your proving my point that if they hold one standard to one thing, YOU HAVE TO HIRE A GUY REGARDLESS OF HIS SKIN COLOR, then they should also HAVE TO HIRE A GUY REGARDLESS OF HIS HAIR LENGTH. In America, in our rules, that's the way things should go based upon the standards that we have laid down...but if it were up to me i would say that it's the same as you wanting to sell your house to somebody, if you don't want to sell your house to a guy because he's wearing a red jacket, it's your house, it's your right to not allow him to buy that house, even if your reasoning is stupid. The same goes for a business, if i didn't want to hire you because you didn't shave i should have that right.
Basically, in America, with our standards, not hiring a guy because he has long hair should be illegal.

But at the same time, I believe that we had the right to not hire somebody based upon something we didn't like about them, then this would be okay. I'm not supporting not hiring a person because he's black/white/blue. I'm supporting that if your going to set up one standard, you should not set up another.

If you are standardless, then judge people based upon how you feel
But if you do put up standards, then don't set up a double standard.

terryn
October 26th, 2009, 01:02 AM
I'm pretty sure most places have laws against not hiring someone based on their race/age/religion/etc. Even if a business has "double standards" as you say, it is (for the most part) legally unacceptable to discriminate against someone based on these legal protected things. It's not really at the discretion of the business. Hair, on the other hand, is not a legally protected aspect of someone, so if they have problems finding a job because of it, then while we may consider it wrong, there's nothing we can do about it.

At the same time, it is important to remember that while most people on this board probably love men with long hair (myself included), or at the very least understand it, in the rest of society men with long hair (past shoulder length) are often considered unclean/unprofessional/rebellious/etc. This attitude seems to be changing, and seems to depend a lot on the location, so maybe I am a little unaware of what larger communities find acceptable as I am from a small, conservative area.

I guess what I am saying is while it may be a double standard, legally it doesn't really matter. Also, I have seen multiple threads like this around here... seems to be a common topic.

EDIT: Also, I second what Shadow walker said COMPLETELY.

Bene
October 26th, 2009, 01:04 AM
I can't even begin to tell you how wrong this is. To suggest it's ok for businesses to discriminate against a black person simply because they're black, a woman because she's a woman, or a Muslim because they're Muslim but not ok to discriminate against a man because his hair is long? That's pretty convoluted to me, we have laws against workplace discrimination for a reason. People should be hired and treated based off of their merit, not their genetics.



Yeah, pretty much




I suppose what stands out to me is the idea that it's ok to discriminate and hiring should be up to an employers discretion, but then pointing out a double standard about long hair. I guess I would understand more if someone argued that discrimination on any level is reprehensible, and long haired men should be included as a group that requires some legal protection against it.

Shadow Walker
October 26th, 2009, 01:22 AM
But at the end of the day i think that they can choose to not hire you if your white, or if you have too many freckles on your face, it's their business.


I'm not supporting not hiring a person because he's black/white/blue. I'm supporting that if your going to set up one standard, you should not set up another.


I'm not understanding your logic, maybe you're just not using the right wording because your posts seem to completely contradict themselves. You're saying that you think that not hiring somebody because they have long hair should be illegal, but yet you go on to say that, and I quote, "you believe" that it's ok to not hire someone based off of other physical traits they might not like? If that's the case then socially we'd still be living in the 1800's or worse.


but if it were up to me i would say that it's the same as you wanting to sell your house to somebody, if you don't want to sell your house to a guy because he's wearing a red jacket, it's your house, it's your right to not allow him to buy that house, even if your reasoning is stupid. The same goes for a business, if i didn't want to hire you because you didn't shave i should have that right.

Selling private property and choosing who to employ in a business are two totally different things. If you choose not to sell your house to somebody then that is your choice, it's your personal property and you can do what you please with it. Unless a business is exclusively family owned and operated, then it must rely on the public to supply its workforce, and therefore is subject to public labor laws which were put in place for a reason.

omgkfclolz
October 26th, 2009, 01:37 AM
I'm not understanding your logic, maybe you're just not using the right wording because your posts seem to completely contradict themselves. You're saying that you think that not hiring somebody because they have long hair should be illegal, but yet you go on to say that, and I quote, "you believe" that it's ok to not hire someone based off of other physical traits they might not like? If that's the case then socially we'd still be living in the 1800's or worse.



Selling private property and choosing who to employ in a business are two totally different things. If you choose not to sell your house to somebody then that is your choice, it's your personal property and you can do what you please with it. Unless a business is exclusively family owned and operated, then it must rely on the public to supply its workforce, and therefore is subject to public labor laws which were put in place for a reason.
i'm holding all of this the standards that i set, if it were up to me. so that automatically eradicates labor laws because it's in my hypothetical world. So a business can be compared to a house then. And what i'm trying to say is under that circumstance, it's okay to discriminate.
Yet on the other hand, in this world, in America, we preach tolerance and acceptance and to wash our minds clean of all people no matter what religion they are or what way they look (skin color), yet at the same time we shun and lepertize those who are males and have long hair based upon...stereotypes (rebellious, low lifes). I think your not understanding the fact that i say that it's not okay for businesses to discriminate yet at the same time i think it's okay for them to. But the first part is basically if your going to lay down one rule, make sure not to seem hypocritical, and the second is if things were ran my way.

terryn
October 26th, 2009, 01:39 AM
I think your not understanding the fact that i say that it's not okay for businesses to discriminate yet at the same time i think it's okay for them to.

Ummm... I am not trying to be rude, but that is completely paradoxical, and makes no sense at all... perhaps it is no mystery if none of us are understanding you properly.

omgkfclolz
October 26th, 2009, 01:45 AM
Ummm... I am not trying to be rude, but that is completely paradoxical, and makes no sense at all... perhaps it is no mystery if none of us are understanding you properly.that's why i go on to explain myself right below that.
how in one case, if they set up one standard they shouldn't set up another, but if it were up to me...

ravenreed
October 26th, 2009, 02:40 AM
You can cut your hair and it will regrow, you cannot change your skin tone or gender. (Well, at least not easily.)

As much as I don't care about whether my doctor or accountant has a ponytail, I ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to put hair length in the same degree of importance as civil rights based on gender or ethnicity. Sorry, not even close.

Not to be offensive, but I am guessing that you are a young white guy who has never had to deal with REAL discrimination.



yeah man, your proving my point that if they hold one standard to one thing, YOU HAVE TO HIRE A GUY REGARDLESS OF HIS SKIN COLOR, then they should also HAVE TO HIRE A GUY REGARDLESS OF HIS HAIR LENGTH. ...

Isa-belle
October 26th, 2009, 02:48 AM
You can cut your hair and it will regrow, you cannot change your skin tone or gender. (Well, at least not easily.)

As much as I don't care about whether my doctor or accountant has a ponytail, I ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to put hair length in the same degree of importance as civil rights based on gender or ethnicity. Sorry, not even close
My thoughts exactly.

sherigayle
October 26th, 2009, 06:30 AM
It doesn't matter how you want things to be in your "hypothetical world". We all live in this world. And in this world, hair is not legally protected, with the exception in case of religious beliefs. Your comparisons don't add up. Race, religion, gender, handicaps, nationality, sexual preferences are all legally protected. Hair, style of dress, tattoos, finger nails, piercings are not protected and can legally be discriminated against. Whether that's morally or ethically ok, is beside the point.

Isilme
October 26th, 2009, 06:41 AM
being professional is not in your hair, it's how you behave, what you do and what you know.
Even if I do not agree with his political standpoints the swedish minister of finances has a ponytail, I don't think he'd be better or worse if he cut off his hair :lol:
Anders Borg: http://content.expressen.se/blog/83/18/05/j-a-e/images/Anders%20Borg.jpg

Maddy25
October 26th, 2009, 07:56 AM
My father always had long hair about BSL and wore in in a ponytail often for weddings and meetings. It always looked very nice. http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n296/addie2525/5331_99673655913_501835913_2112411_.jpg

Eboshi
October 26th, 2009, 08:07 AM
i'm holding all of this the standards that i set, if it were up to me. so that automatically eradicates labor laws because it's in my hypothetical world. So a business can be compared to a house then. And what i'm trying to say is under that circumstance, it's okay to discriminate.
Yet on the other hand, in this world, in America, we preach tolerance and acceptance and to wash our minds clean of all people no matter what religion they are or what way they look (skin color), yet at the same time we shun and lepertize those who are males and have long hair based upon...stereotypes (rebellious, low lifes). I think your not understanding the fact that i say that it's not okay for businesses to discriminate yet at the same time i think it's okay for them to. But the first part is basically if your going to lay down one rule, make sure not to seem hypocritical, and the second is if things were ran my way.
It is REALLY difficult for me to understand what you are writing. I've linked to a thread here and believe that you would find it very helpful:
http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/announcement.php?f=9&a=3

Alun
October 26th, 2009, 09:09 AM
The OP seems to be completely confused.

I work in Washington DC (although I live in Maryland). The DC Human Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on a long list of things, including hair style. I believe this was added originally to prevent discrimination against black people of both genders wearing their hair in cornrows. DC is majority black, but many employers there are whites who live in the suburbs, in either Maryland or Virginia.

I have mentionned before that I work in a law firm. What I haven't necessarily always pointed out is that my employer is not permitted to discriminate based upon my hair style (I am writing it as two words because that's how it's written in the statute).

OTOH, I have worked in the same type of job in Virginia also, and to say that Viriginia laws provide almost no protection to employees is an understatement.

AFAIK, there is nowhere else other than DC with such an enlightened law. It is a model to copy.

Laws against sex discrimination have totally failed to protect long hair on men, even though their plain meaning should provide such protection, because judges have ruled perversely that dress codes for men and women only have to be equivalent and not the same. Equivalent is not equal, just as separate education for blacks wasn't equal. Black schools were supposed to provide equivalent education, and never did. This was only fixed by integration giving them the same education. Men and women should have the same dress code, otherwise it isn't equal treatment.

The European Human Rights Act has a clause protecting self expression. This should also protect the right to keep your hair, but it is by no means certain if it will.

I think a hairstyle (or hair style!) clause should be in every human rights act, everywhere, as that is the only thing that will work, and also protects dreads, cornrows, etc. Without it there's no real gender equality, even in the presence of other laws that are explicitly supposed to guarantee gender equality.

OTOH, I can't understand why anyone would want to roll back protections based on race and gender, unless they are some kind of loathsome fascist, much less make any sense of the 'arguments' for it, which are so befuddled that I wouldn't know where to start to compose any sort of real reply.

JamieLeigh
October 26th, 2009, 09:30 AM
I certainly think a man in a nice, sleek ponytail can look very professional. And thankfully, we seem to be somewhat moving away from hair stereotypes man-wise, as the older generation is retiring and the younger generations step up to the plate. It will probably still be a long time before things are anywhere near what they should be, but I've seen many more ponytails on professional men in recent years than ever before. :)

Peter
October 26th, 2009, 09:46 AM
... Wait, what?

Are you saying that discriminating against some minorities is worse than discriminating against all minorities? So if a business hired people of all skin colors and religions, but no long-haired men, that's worse than not hiring anyone with a certain skin color, religion, or hair length?

Clarify if I misunderstood?

BranwenWolf
October 26th, 2009, 09:59 AM
Er... it would appear that your first post and second post contradict each other. No, it's not okay for businesses to pick who they want to hire (based on skin color or looks) because it's their workplace. It may be their space but there's a reason it's against the law. They pick (or should pick) who is the better worker.

Back to the original subject:
I think a nicely done ponytail can look more professional than those emo/surfer/flowbee/D.A. hairdos I see floating around a lot.

It would depend on what you consider "professional" but I've seen nice ponytails in higher-end retail, and also one awesome construction worker with a tailbone-length ponytail. (Think he was Native American)

Leena7
October 26th, 2009, 10:05 AM
I think I understand the OP. let me see, you are saying that you think that discrimination against people whether it be against their race, religion, hair length, etc, is wrong. However, you also think that even though you personally think that such discrimination is wrong, that ultimately, it is up to the private company to decide who they want to hire, even if their reasoning is biased and stupid, which I suppose I can understand, even though I don't necessarily agree. You mean to say that it is the company's money and their business, so therefore they get to choose their employees, thus they can choose to be biased against certain people, even if it isn't ethically right.

Your problem with it, is that while it is looked down upon for a company to discriminate against race, religion and gender, it isn't regarded as bad to discriminate against a person based on their hair length and that bothers you. You think that companies shouldn't care how long you wear your hair, just like they shouldn't care what race or religion you are, however, you still respect their decision not to hire a long hair, although you personally believe it is wrong.

Pheww...*wipes brow*

I can see where you are coming from, especially in the case of men. It is definitely more acceptable in professional settings for women to have long hair. They can wear it up. It's a cultural norm, etc. that being said, I long longer hair on men, so it makes me sad that if my boyfriend got a professional job, he would probably have to cut his shoulder-length hair, at least a bit.

But, I can see where the companies are coming from. They want to project a certain image. Professional looking and clean cut. Long hair on a man still seems to harken back to the hippie movement for many people. Also, many people assume that men with long hair are rebellious or simply not serious, although that is a stupid assumption. I think mainly companies want to portray a clean-cut, professional image and they often times see a man with long hair, and depending on the man and how his hair looks, think that he doesn't fit their company. I think it has to do with culture, although it seems to be changing and long hair is becoming more accepted.

However, I don't think long hair discrimination is nearly as bad as racial or religious discrimination. People can cut their hair if they want a job bad enough, however, people cannot change their race and should not have to change religions for the sake of a job. Hair, in the end, if superficial and it is able to be changed. I also don't see many hate crimes being directed toward people with long hair. I just think although hair discrimination is unfortunate, in the end, it isn't as serious as other forms of discrimination in the work place.

florenonite
October 26th, 2009, 10:16 AM
i'm holding all of this the standards that i set, if it were up to me. so that automatically eradicates labor laws because it's in my hypothetical world. So a business can be compared to a house then. And what i'm trying to say is under that circumstance, it's okay to discriminate.
Yet on the other hand, in this world, in America, we preach tolerance and acceptance and to wash our minds clean of all people no matter what religion they are or what way they look (skin color), yet at the same time we shun and lepertize those who are males and have long hair based upon...stereotypes (rebellious, low lifes). I think your not understanding the fact that i say that it's not okay for businesses to discriminate yet at the same time i think it's okay for them to. But the first part is basically if your going to lay down one rule, make sure not to seem hypocritical, and the second is if things were ran my way.

OK, I think I see what you're saying. You think that businesses have the right to discriminate, but if they're going to puff themselves up and claim not to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, etc. then they shouldn't discriminate on the basis of hair. I agree with the second bit. It's hypocritical of them, and discrimination based on one's chosen appearance can be as disastrous (does anyone remember that goth girl, Sophie I think her name was, who was beaten to death a couple years ago?) as any other form of discrimination.

As for the first bit, though. Do you really think it is ok for businesses to discriminate about whom they hire? Have you ever actually experienced discrimination before? I can't say I've ever truly been on the receiving end of discriminatory behaviour, but I've experienced enough to allow me to say with complete confidence that I hope never to be in that position.

Businesses do not have the right not to hire people because of their appearance. Sure, I theoretically have the right to dislike you based on your appearance, but that comes with the condition that that dislike does not affect how I treat you. If a business doesn't hire someone because of his or her appearance, then that business's dislike of the person's appearance has negatively affected the person, and that is wrong.

Oh, and last time I checked, America is a country or a continent, and there's a heck of a lot more to "this world" than what you see in the US. And there are parts of the world in which discrimination based on sex or race is perfectly acceptable and even encoded in law.

SimplyViki
October 26th, 2009, 10:25 AM
Florenonite - Wow, I hadn't heard that story. How absolutely heartbreaking!

Morrighan
October 26th, 2009, 10:50 AM
Leena7, I thought that's what he meant too.


Not to be offensive, but I am guessing that you are a young white guy who has never had to deal with REAL discrimination.

I started to type out a reply to this but it was getting way too long and would have pulled the thread too off topic or maybe kill it. So I'll just say that one shouldn't assume someone hasn't faced discrimination because of their race or gender. And therefor that is a little offensive.

Themyst
October 26th, 2009, 10:59 AM
I think what the OP is trying to say is that a business should not be able to pick and choose what to not discriminate against. As in, if a business chooses to follow the no-discrimination rules (yes, they all must by law, but some don't), then they should also follow the personal expression rules that Alun brought up as is happening in D.C.

biggeorge
October 26th, 2009, 01:34 PM
OK, I think
Businesses do not have the right not to hire people because of their appearance. Sure, I theoretically have the right to dislike you based on your appearance, but that comes with the condition that that dislike does not affect how I treat you. If a business doesn't hire someone because of his or her appearance, then that business's dislike of the person's appearance has negatively affected the person, and that is wrong.


What about the reverse? Is it fair to be forced to hire a person if his/her appearance affects the business negatively?

Many sales jobs require a conservative look because of the clientèle they deal with. Forcing them to hire people who dress wildly and have multiple piercings and tattoos simply mean that the business would go to a competitor. Is is fair to put the company out of business? I don't think so.

There is a difference between being discriminatory on the basis of age, race, sex, etc. and being discriminatory on CHOICES people make. You have the right to insert 19 coat hangers through your face; the owner of the funeral home has the right to determine whether or not that would be detrimental to his business as part of the hiring decision process. An extreme example I know, but it makes the point.

A more salient example to which many here can relate. Visit the makeup counters at most major department stores, and count the number of employees behind those counters that refuse to wear makeup. My oldest daughter worked at a counter such as this for a period of time, and they were required to wear the product. Should they be forced to hire people that refuse to wear their product?

It is not discrimination when the set of standards applies to all, and each has the choice of whether or not to comply, and knows this going into the position. It is discrimination when different standards apply to each depending on race, age, sex, etc.

florenonite
October 26th, 2009, 01:44 PM
What about the reverse? Is it fair to be forced to hire a person if his/her appearance affects the business negatively?

Many sales jobs require a conservative look because of the clientèle they deal with. Forcing them to hire people who dress wildly and have multiple piercings and tattoos simply mean that the business would go to a competitor. Is is fair to put the company out of business? I don't think so.

There is a difference between being discriminatory on the basis of age, race, sex, etc. and being discriminatory on CHOICES people make. You have the right to insert 19 coat hangers through your face; the owner of the funeral home has the right to determine whether or not that would be detrimental to his business as part of the hiring decision process. An extreme example I know, but it makes the point.

A more salient example to which many here can relate. Visit the makeup counters at most major department stores, and count the number of employees behind those counters that refuse to wear makeup. My oldest daughter worked at a counter such as this for a period of time, and they were required to wear the product. Should they be forced to hire people that refuse to wear their product?

It is not discrimination when the set of standards applies to all, and each has the choice of whether or not to comply, and knows this going into the position. It is discrimination when different standards apply to each depending on race, age, sex, etc.

I see what you're saying, but I never said that I thought businesses should be forced to hire people that don't comply with their standards for an "image". I think it's wrong that they don't hire people who don't fit the "image", but it's not just their fault. It's the fault of the customers and industry, too.

I used to work as a swimming instructor, and one of the girls I worked with had multiple facial piercings, stretched her earlobes (sorry, I don't know the term for that), and had dreadlocks. And she was one of the best instructors there. She loved young children, and did an amazing job with them. In this case, not only would it have been unfair to her to discriminate against her (and yes it is discrimination even if it applies fairly across all ages, sexes, etc.), but the city for which I worked would also have lost out, because they wouldn't have had a wonderful instructor working for them.

I also don't think your comparison of the makeup counter is a fair one. Being knowledgeable about makeup is something that one expects of people working there, and if they see women working there without wearing makeup, then they have less confidence in their abilities with makeup than otherwise. However, one's hair has nothing to do with one's ability to, for instance, be an accountant, and therefore one's appearance should not be a deciding factor in whether or not one is hired.

I'm not saying it's just the businesses at fault when they do discriminate. I understand that they don't want to lose customers. However, that doesn't make it right. It is wrong to discriminate on the basis of appearance, end of story.

ravenreed
October 26th, 2009, 02:04 PM
Well, I have faced discrimination based on my gender, and have friends/family who have been discriminated based on race and I cannot really see *any* of them comparing gender or ethnicity to hair length... hence my comment. I could be wrong.


Leena7, I thought that's what he meant too.



I started to type out a reply to this but it was getting way too long and would have pulled the thread too off topic or maybe kill it. So I'll just say that one shouldn't assume someone hasn't faced discrimination because of their race or gender. And therefor that is a little offensive.

ravenreed
October 26th, 2009, 02:08 PM
In the casinos in Las Vegas, they not only hire based on weight, height, gender, etc, they will fire you if you change your appearance in a manner they do not approve of. If you are a cocktail waitress who gains too much weight, they will fire you. I don't know if they were ever successfully sued, but I am pretty sure it is still going on.

masterofmidgets
October 26th, 2009, 02:34 PM
I choose to have long hair, pierced ears, and a tattoo. I did not choose to be white (well, mostly white), able-bodied, female, bisexual, and cisgendered. Comparing the bias against men (or women) with long hair in some fields to the discrimination faced by actual minority groups, who are not in a position of being able to change their minority status, is ludicrous, in my opinion. The laws against hiring/unlawfully firing/underpaying minorities (of whatever category) don't exist so that businesses can feel good about themselves for following them - they exist because without them there were serious discrimination problems, and probably still would be.

That said, I do agree that no one should be discriminated against for non-performance affecting choices of personal appearance. It's stupid, pointless, and close-minded. If you want to have long hair and it isn't going to interfere with you doing your job (and I can think of very few jobs where it would), it shouldn't even be an issue.

biggeorge
October 26th, 2009, 02:40 PM
I also don't think your comparison of the makeup counter is a fair one. Being knowledgeable about makeup is something that one expects of people working there, and if they see women working there without wearing makeup, then they have less confidence in their abilities with makeup than otherwise. However, one's hair has nothing to do with one's ability to, for instance, be an accountant, and therefore one's appearance should not be a deciding factor in whether or not one is hired.


I see. To be fair we have to have a double standard.

You make the exact point that you are arguing against. Discrimination is treating these issues differently. Not wearing makeup is not an indicator of not knowing about it; it may be an indicator of giving the appearance of not knowing about it. And you outright state that appearances should not be a deciding factor.

Is it fair to discriminate based on one's chosen appearance when that appearance causes the customers to have less confidence in their abilities? In the makeup scenario you argue for it, but in the funeral home instance you argue against it.

So who, in your opinion, makes the list of which industries it is OK to discriminate against based on your standards and which it is not?

florenonite
October 26th, 2009, 03:52 PM
I see. To be fair we have to have a double standard.

You make the exact point that you are arguing against. Discrimination is treating these issues differently. Not wearing makeup is not an indicator of not knowing about it; it may be an indicator of giving the appearance of not knowing about it. And you outright state that appearances should not be a deciding factor.

Is it fair to discriminate based on one's chosen appearance when that appearance causes the customers to have less confidence in their abilities? In the makeup scenario you argue for it, but in the funeral home instance you argue against it.

So who, in your opinion, makes the list of which industries it is OK to discriminate against based on your standards and which it is not?

My point is that makeup is actually related to the job at hand, and therefore it is acceptable to have certain expectations of someone in that regard. If someone is wearing well-applied makeup, it allows a customer to have confidence in their knowledge of makeup. If a lawyer has short hair, it allows a customer to have confidence in the lawyer's ability to get his hair cut, but does not have any relationship to his job.

Furthermore, it is something that can be removed/replaced at will, and therefore is more akin to clothes than hairstyle or piercings. For instance a dreadlocked funeral home worker could reasonably be expected to wear a suit to work, as that doesn't permanently (or long-term, at least) alter his or her appearance, only for work. Likewise someone working at a makeup counter can be expected to wear makeup to work and then remove it afterwards.

Morrighan
October 26th, 2009, 04:22 PM
Well, I have faced discrimination based on my gender, and have friends/family who have been discriminated based on race and I cannot really see *any* of them comparing gender or ethnicity to hair length... hence my comment. I could be wrong.

Maybe I misunderstood you then, or you me, because I wasn't talking about discrimination based on hair length, but race or gender. And I also agree that discrimination based on hair length is nothing compared to racism or sexism and other things that the person can't control.

ravenreed
October 26th, 2009, 04:41 PM
All good then? :o


Maybe I misunderstood you then, or you me, because I wasn't talking about discrimination based on hair length, but race or gender. And I also agree that discrimination based on hair length is nothing compared to racism or sexism and other things that the person can't control.

Willheit
October 26th, 2009, 05:00 PM
I encounter a male CPA on a regular basis who has APL+ red hair which he wears pulled in a pony at the nap of his neck. He is both very professional and highly accomplished in his field (he is one of the partners at a very high-end firm and is quite young.... 35 or younger I think).

I don't see anything unprofessional about men with long hair and find it looks MORE professional when pulled back. Professionalism is much more about how you behave and speak and how clean/put together you are than hair length.


Alun said it all perfectly I think with regard to the legality side of it!

klcqtee
October 26th, 2009, 05:09 PM
I think that business do have the right to discriminate in regards to who they hire. If I ran a business, I'd hire people with tattoos exposed, and long hair, but I'd never hire someone who wears too much make up and refuses to tone it down.

We all have the rights to our biases.

Gvnagitlvgei
October 26th, 2009, 05:24 PM
This is supposedly a pluralistic society and I do not think it ever appropriate to take away people's liberties regarding their culture. Somethings naturally raise an eyebrow, ex., full veil for a driver's license. But regarding long hair for males, I guess if that were your culture like it is for mine, it shouldn't be opposed.

Gvnagitlvgei
October 26th, 2009, 05:25 PM
Any Native males on here? What have you specifically encountered?

biggeorge
October 26th, 2009, 05:32 PM
My point is that makeup is actually related to the job at hand, and therefore it is acceptable to have certain expectations of someone in that regard. If someone is wearing well-applied makeup, it allows a customer to have confidence in their knowledge of makeup. If a lawyer has short hair, it allows a customer to have confidence in the lawyer's ability to get his hair cut, but does not have any relationship to his job.

The inherent problem here is that you are projecting your view as that of all customers. You may feel that an attorney with short hair has no bearing on his abilities, but there are many that feel that the attorney's appearance is a direct reflection of his ability. Not saying it is right, but saying that is the way it is. Therefore his appearance (i.e. hair length) might have an effect on his income due to the bias of the client.

Carry it a step farther. If there is a hair salon that specializes in the short spiked blow fried look, does that exclude one with gorgeous long hair from working there? Based on your criterion, it is related to the job at hand, therefore it is acceptable of certain expectations of someone in that regard to make them cut their hair or not work there. And if it is OK to do so for the hair salon, but not the attorney's office, then differing standards are being held based on the perceived requirements of the industry.

And that is the exact point I tried to make in my original post. As long as the standards are the same for all within that particular job, and all take that job understanding and agreeing to those particular limitations, then there is no discrimination. ALL of the ladies at the makeup counter have to use the product when working. All of the people at the spiked salon have to have styles representative of what they do. And if it is the requirements at the attorney's office that all dress conservative business style due to the clientèle they represent then they must do so. As long as the rules apply to all.

Themyst
October 26th, 2009, 06:52 PM
Hmmm ... didn't Hooters have some kind of issue with this? Since they only hired large-breasted women? :hmm:

Mutinous
October 26th, 2009, 07:00 PM
At the end of the day, when you are male, and growing your hair, you know exactly how wider society perceives it. Growing up in a culture means you know its norms and values, hence meaning you should fully expect some adverse reaction to your hair. This is because people have been socialised for generations with pictures of the ideal male (and female) in mind (and this picture portrays a man with short hair). This is going to take time to change, and if it bothers you that much, you can always go for the scissors.

Comparing a style choice and its lingering aversions to discrimination such as race, gender and religion is callous and a bit naive to be honest. You need to think of why long hair on men is negatively looked at on by some, and a lot of the time, it comes down to being tagged along with other prejudices. E.g. some people seeing it as 'gay', or of being of lower class etc.

I think we have a lot more pressing 'discriminations' to overcome first before we start campaigning for Hair Rights.

WaimeaWahine
October 26th, 2009, 07:05 PM
There's no double standard, just the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act which every employer must legally adhere to. You have to be able to prove that there is a double standard or that discrimination is actually occurring. Easier said than done.

It would be gender discrimination under the CRA to allow female employees to wear their hair long but not allow male employees to do the same. The fact that no one is aware of these things and doesn't want to fight them is why much of it still happens.

I have no problems with men having any kind of hairstyle. Whether or not it looks professional is none of my business. If I worked in Human Resources again then it would all come down to who was most qualified and who would be the best fit - hair or no hair. But then, I've worked in some fairly curious places.

Barbie Diamond
October 26th, 2009, 07:16 PM
I go to Williamsburg, VA all the time and there are lots of men with long hair (almost all of them in one part of town and they all seem to have jobs though their clothes look old).

Eden Iris
October 26th, 2009, 07:24 PM
My husband is a godforsaken, pony-tailed hippie and has managed to hold onto professional jobs for the past 20 or so years. We live in a pretty relaxed area, though.

GoddesJourney
October 26th, 2009, 08:56 PM
I think I understand the OP. let me see, you are saying that you think that discrimination against people whether it be against their race, religion, hair length, etc, is wrong. However, you also think that even though you personally think that such discrimination is wrong, that ultimately, it is up to the private company to decide who they want to hire, even if their reasoning is biased and stupid, which I suppose I can understand, even though I don't necessarily agree. You mean to say that it is the company's money and their business, so therefore they get to choose their employees, thus they can choose to be biased against certain people, even if it isn't ethically right.

Your problem with it, is that while it is looked down upon for a company to discriminate against race, religion and gender, it isn't regarded as bad to discriminate against a person based on their hair length and that bothers you. You think that companies shouldn't care how long you wear your hair, just like they shouldn't care what race or religion you are, however, you still respect their decision not to hire a long hair, although you personally believe it is wrong.

Pheww...*wipes brow*

I've been following this thread and it's been driving me crazy reading all the posts of people who were just reading the OP however they wanted to interpret it. I never thought it was about racial discrimination being okay but long hair discrimination being bad. It seems like people read the first part, misinterpretted, and then stopped reading so they could angrily post. Thank you for being the first person to actually see that.

That said, yeah, I don't think that really any form of discrimination is okay, but some lines are difficult to draw. For example, if there is a person who has very poor hygene who wants to do social work, it may not be a good idea. The problem is that then you have to deal with various people's idea of poor hygene. Some more conservative people think that facial hair looks dirty. Others think that tattoos (although under the skin) is a dirty thing. Often, I feel that it's not the manager at the restaurant that has something against the waitor with the eyebrow ring, it's the cranky, old-fashioned customers who think their food will somehow taste different or be unsafe if that particular waitor is serving it.

Anyway, I'm not going anywhere with this. I'm just glad at least one person actually read the OP.

GoddesJourney
October 26th, 2009, 09:03 PM
This is supposedly a pluralistic society and I do not think it ever appropriate to take away people's liberties regarding their culture. Somethings naturally raise an eyebrow, ex., full veil for a driver's license. But regarding long hair for males, I guess if that were your culture like it is for mine, it shouldn't be opposed.

I was thinking this. What about people who don't cut their hair for religious or cultural reasons? What about the full veil?
It's difficult to get people to separate these things out for what they are.

ravenreed
October 27th, 2009, 03:46 AM
I live in an area with a lot of Native Americans. I see long hair all around me, quite often on men. However, I have not been paying attention to what percentage of "professional" jobs have male type people with long hair. I will try to be more aware of it.


Any Native males on here? What have you specifically encountered?

ravenreed
October 27th, 2009, 03:58 AM
I don't understand this comment. A lot of us read his posts and took the time to try to understand what he was saying. We just might not all agree with him.


I've been following this thread and it's been driving me crazy reading all the posts of people who were just reading the OP however they wanted to interpret it. I never thought it was about racial discrimination being okay but long hair discrimination being bad. It seems like people read the first part, misinterpretted, and then stopped reading so they could angrily post. Thank you for being the first person to actually see that.
....
Anyway, I'm not going anywhere with this. I'm just glad at least one person actually read the OP.

Fiferstone
October 27th, 2009, 06:03 AM
Thank you Shadow Walker, you said it 1000% better than I could. Discrimination is wrong. Period.

florenonite
October 27th, 2009, 07:02 AM
The inherent problem here is that you are projecting your view as that of all customers. You may feel that an attorney with short hair has no bearing on his abilities, but there are many that feel that the attorney's appearance is a direct reflection of his ability. Not saying it is right, but saying that is the way it is. Therefore his appearance (i.e. hair length) might have an effect on his income due to the bias of the client.

Carry it a step farther. If there is a hair salon that specializes in the short spiked blow fried look, does that exclude one with gorgeous long hair from working there? Based on your criterion, it is related to the job at hand, therefore it is acceptable of certain expectations of someone in that regard to make them cut their hair or not work there. And if it is OK to do so for the hair salon, but not the attorney's office, then differing standards are being held based on the perceived requirements of the industry.

And that is the exact point I tried to make in my original post. As long as the standards are the same for all within that particular job, and all take that job understanding and agreeing to those particular limitations, then there is no discrimination. ALL of the ladies at the makeup counter have to use the product when working. All of the people at the spiked salon have to have styles representative of what they do. And if it is the requirements at the attorney's office that all dress conservative business style due to the clientèle they represent then they must do so. As long as the rules apply to all.

You say it's not discrimination if the standards apply to everyone, but what about when men aren't allowed long hair and women are? Is that not sexual discrimination?

As for the rest of it, I don't think we're going to agree on this, so we'll just have to agree to disagree :flower:

ETA: A lot of people are saying that discrimination based on someone's decisions is not as bad as that based on what they cannot change. I mentioned above that a girl was killed for the appearance she chose for herself. Surely that is as bad as a gay man or a woman getting killed for being whom they are? Furthermore, issues people have with things like long hair on men are based on sexual discrimination. Long hair is traditionally worn by women, ergo men are emasculating themselves by wearing it, and hence they are demeaning themselves by becoming 'lesser' than they are. Consequently if this sort of discrimination is allowed to continue because it's not 'as bad as' sexual discrimination against women, then sexism will persist and you cannot try end it.

Yes, people can change their hair length, or clothing, or piercings at will, and if they face discrimination from it they can change to something more socially acceptable. OTOH, I cannot change the fact that I am a woman, and my friend cannot change the fact that she is Iranian. This makes the discrimination against long hair and against women different because I cannot change whom I am whilst my friend with long hair can change that about himself. However, I refuse to believe that discrimination he might face is not as bad as that which I might face when people are attacked and even killed because they look 'different'.

I realise we're merely talking about a workplace setting here, and no one's getting killed for wanting to wear a ponytail to work, but if the discrimination is allowed to exist in that setting, then stereotypes and prejudices live on. If people with piercings are not allowed to work in a professional environment, then that reinforces the idea that such people cannot behave professionally, or they do not have the motivation to do something with their life. This in turn reinforces the excuses of those who attack them, because they're perceived to not do anything worthwhile anyway. All discrimination is wrong.

biggeorge
October 27th, 2009, 07:21 AM
As for the rest of it, I don't think we're going to agree on this, so we'll just have to agree to disagree :flower:

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree; it means we have a difference of opinion.

I have often said I value intelligent debates with those who hold opposing views. In this respect you have my compliments.

Belisarius
October 27th, 2009, 03:08 PM
Jonathan Schwartz the ceo of sun has a ponytail. So ponytails can be professional. :-)

spidermom
October 27th, 2009, 03:24 PM
My husband's doctor is native American, and he has a waist-length ponytail. I used to work for a gray-haired doctor who wore an APL ponytail and a big diamond earring. Another doctor I worked for wore a full beard (though short hair) and sandals. The staff called him "the sheepherder" behind his back. Anyway, my point: doctors are professional and apparently can wear their hair any way they want.

ravenreed
October 28th, 2009, 02:49 AM
I get sexually discriminated against every danged summer! I get very annoyed when men can run around topless and I cannot. There are still a lot of clothing biases, one way and the other.

In a work place setting, the rules are a little different. It used to be that women could only wear suits with skirts, now happily there are suits that come with pants. I foresee a time when men with ponytails will not cause a stir.

The problem with facial piercings and tattoos and such is that they are not mainstream and as such not considered appropriate "business attire", which is a sort of unofficial uniform of the average cubicle inhabitant.



You say it's not discrimination if the standards apply to everyone, but what about when men aren't allowed long hair and women are? Is that not sexual discrimination?

As for the rest of it, I don't think we're going to agree on this, so we'll just have to agree to disagree :flower:

ETA: A lot of people are saying that discrimination based on someone's decisions is not as bad as that based on what they cannot change. I mentioned above that a girl was killed for the appearance she chose for herself. Surely that is as bad as a gay man or a woman getting killed for being whom they are? Furthermore, issues people have with things like long hair on men are based on sexual discrimination. Long hair is traditionally worn by women, ergo men are emasculating themselves by wearing it, and hence they are demeaning themselves by becoming 'lesser' than they are. Consequently if this sort of discrimination is allowed to continue because it's not 'as bad as' sexual discrimination against women, then sexism will persist and you cannot try end it.

Yes, people can change their hair length, or clothing, or piercings at will, and if they face discrimination from it they can change to something more socially acceptable. OTOH, I cannot change the fact that I am a woman, and my friend cannot change the fact that she is Iranian. This makes the discrimination against long hair and against women different because I cannot change whom I am whilst my friend with long hair can change that about himself. However, I refuse to believe that discrimination he might face is not as bad as that which I might face when people are attacked and even killed because they look 'different'.

I realise we're merely talking about a workplace setting here, and no one's getting killed for wanting to wear a ponytail to work, but if the discrimination is allowed to exist in that setting, then stereotypes and prejudices live on. If people with piercings are not allowed to work in a professional environment, then that reinforces the idea that such people cannot behave professionally, or they do not have the motivation to do something with their life. This in turn reinforces the excuses of those who attack them, because they're perceived to not do anything worthwhile anyway. All discrimination is wrong.

florenonite
October 28th, 2009, 03:45 AM
I get sexually discriminated against every danged summer! I get very annoyed when men can run around topless and I cannot. There are still a lot of clothing biases, one way and the other.

In a work place setting, the rules are a little different. It used to be that women could only wear suits with skirts, now happily there are suits that come with pants. I foresee a time when men with ponytails will not cause a stir.

The problem with facial piercings and tattoos and such is that they are not mainstream and as such not considered appropriate "business attire", which is a sort of unofficial uniform of the average cubicle inhabitant.

I see what you're saying about facial piercings and tattoos. I suppose I feel like business attire should only be clothing (and possibly makeup), as that's something that comes off and on. Piercings, tattoos, and long hair are all things that you either have or you don't, you can't remove them and replace them at will (well, you can with piercings, but that can be problematic). That's not the case, unfortunately, but if we have a 60-odd-year-old lecturer here (in the psychology department, no less!) with blue hair, one day, it will be :p

Gvnagitlvgei
October 28th, 2009, 08:24 PM
I live in an area with a lot of Native Americans. I see long hair all around me, quite often on men. However, I have not been paying attention to what percentage of "professional" jobs have male type people with long hair. I will try to be more aware of it.


Thank you for comprehending my point. They cannot discriminate. That's not to say, however, that Natives don't cut their hair, in case anybody think so. But they cannot discriminate for these. I don't think they can do so for Rastafarians either but I'm not sure. Sikhs? No discrimination. Men with beards.....oh...this discussion can go on forever lol.

To the OP, I know what you meant. And we'd be dishonest if we truly that some form of discrimination shouldn't occur because it certainly does. I'm just making a point for people of certain heritages other than the male who just likes wearing it long.

Bellona
October 28th, 2009, 10:16 PM
I think Leena7 articulated what the OP was trying to say.

People have varying beliefs about how much control the government should have over private business matters. Some would like to get rid of all control (and not necessarily fascists, as has been suggested, but some libertarians/anarchists as well, depending on their beliefs) and some lobby for total government control.

Everyone's opinion is different, there are many different people from different walks of life here, and I really feel this thread shouldn't be on a hair board. It's unfortunate that men are discriminated against for having long hair, but people judge women on their appearance all the time (probably much more than men in general), regardless of hair length! Everyone makes judgements at some point or another, not that it's right, but it's life.

Alun
October 29th, 2009, 07:05 PM
There's no double standard, just the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act which every employer must legally adhere to. You have to be able to prove that there is a double standard or that discrimination is actually occurring. Easier said than done.

It would be gender discrimination under the CRA to allow female employees to wear their hair long but not allow male employees to do the same. The fact that no one is aware of these things and doesn't want to fight them is why much of it still happens.



This is exactly true in the way that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was written, but unfortunately it has been wilfully misinterpreted by judges, and under the common law system of precedent what those judges have said now has more force of law than what was written in the act, even though their decisions now enforce a double standard.

Even if the above paragraph is difficult to understand, what you need to know is that particular aspect of the statute has long since become a dead letter.


Thank you Shadow Walker, you said it 1000% better than I could. Discrimination is wrong. Period.

That's my bottom line too.


I get sexually discriminated against every danged summer! I get very annoyed when men can run around topless and I cannot.



None of us men would object. Honest!


I see what you're saying about facial piercings and tattoos. I suppose I feel like business attire should only be clothing (and possibly makeup), as that's something that comes off and on. Piercings, tattoos, and long hair are all things that you either have or you don't, you can't remove them and replace them at will (well, you can with piercings, but that can be problematic). That's not the case, unfortunately, but if we have a 60-odd-year-old lecturer here (in the psychology department, no less!) with blue hair, one day, it will be :p

We have a winner!

Seriously, though, making someone dress smartly is not discrimination, and making them cut off six years of hair growth is.

Let me tell you a little story (I'm showing signs of age and tend to repeat the same ones, but I don't think I've told this one for a little while, LOL!). Many years ago the Education Minister of the UK was someone called Rhodes Boyson. He was a right-wing disciplinarian, and favoured schoolkids having to dress in identical school uniforms. You would think he would have been exactly the sort to have been in favour of compulsory haircuts, but he was not, and when asked why he explained that it would have affected the appearance of the boys outside of school on their own time, and that the schools had no right to do that. I didn't agree with much that he said, but in that he was exactly 100% correct.


I think Leena7 articulated what the OP was trying to say.

People have varying beliefs about how much control the government should have over private business matters. Some would like to get rid of all control (and not necessarily fascists, as has been suggested, but some libertarians/anarchists as well, depending on their beliefs) and some lobby for total government control.

Everyone's opinion is different, there are many different people from different walks of life here, and I really feel this thread shouldn't be on a hair board. It's unfortunate that men are discriminated against for having long hair, but people judge women on their appearance all the time (probably much more than men in general), regardless of hair length! Everyone makes judgements at some point or another, not that it's right, but it's life.

Government has only a tangential role. Sometimes businesses are tied up with red tape, but half the time it's really that they want to do something wrong and are annoyed that they can't.

Discrimination is morally wrong, whatever it's based on. If government doesn't do something about it, who else can? Even then, complete enforcement of rules against discrimination is impossible, as so often someone may suspect why they weren't hired but they can't prove it. Whether we have long hair, or some other more immutable characteristic, all we can really do in those cases is be thankful that we don't work for bigots.

However, the mere presence of rules usually nudges the decent majority towards doing the right thing. Most people aren't actually bigots, and if they do worry what their clients would think about them hiring an 'undesirable', most would be grateful for a rule they can point at and say "See, I had to hire him/her/the small green furry thing from Alpha Centauri - It says so right here!".

People get confused when they conflate hair and dress codes together, though. Several posts in this thread confuse dress codes with discrimination as well. Enforcing a dress code is not discrimination, but hair has no business being mentionned in a dress code, beyond the basic requirement to fasten it if necessary to keep it out of food and/or rotating machinery. The reason is stupidly simple. Hair is a body part, not an item of clothing. Anyone who can't grasp that is not playing with a full deck, IMHO.

enfys
November 3rd, 2009, 01:39 PM
I'm late to this party but I don't care! I read all the posts too, but didn't neccessarily understand them all.

A point no-one made yet is the reverse situation for men. This summer DH couldn't cut his hair as short as he wants because he was worried about appearing professional in the school he works at. Someone said he looked intimidating before, which isn't a great look around kids.
Men have a much more limited range of hair lengths which are accepted by all. Or most at least.

The big pain about businesses that employ you is that they pretty much own you. The say jump, you say how high. It's not just with hair, it's with everything. No matter what you look like there will be someone somewhere who will employ you.

Since this is specifically about men with long hair in a ponytail, I'll say I think that's a lot more professional looking that anyone with long hair loose, male or female.

This also seemed to be just about the USA, so I'm glad I'm in the UK and none of this affects anyone, ever here....

Arriens
November 3rd, 2009, 05:36 PM
After reading this thread I am so happy that my boss doesn't mind long hair, as long as it stays invisible under the (military) helmet. :D
I do have to keep my face clean shaven though.

pdy2kn6
November 4th, 2009, 12:44 AM
I think they can, its all just about preference. When I was studying a semester in Sydney university I would always see a caretaker sort of man (janitor) and he had about nipple length hair tied tightly in a ponytail and then braided down the length of the ponytail. I think this looked really professional and neat, showed that he really did care about his appearance and his hair!!

Oh and also...I wish I had known about that gender discrimination act someone mentioned above, I could of used this to argue my case when I was in school trying to grow my hair long, but they wouldn't let me because 'guys had to have their hair not touching their collar'...even though one of my classmate, who was on a soap tv show at the time, was allowed his hair to be longer because he had 'special conditions' (the show wanted him to have longer hair)...VERY discriminatory...if that is the right word? lol!!!

zsuper
November 4th, 2009, 05:02 AM
I'm a professional male who does a lot of travel and I have waist-length hair. I've never heard a complaint or had trouble with my employers regarding it; actually I've gotten 'I wish I had your hair' from females rather often.

However, I only keep my hair down if it looks smooth and neat; if it's being frizzy, puffy, or un-agreeable, I tie it back into a ponytail and tuck it into my shirt. I think, for men at least, the line between nice and unruly hair is very thin.
Most men with long hair that I've met don't put as much time as they should into taking care of it.

yellowchariot
November 5th, 2009, 11:39 PM
I know that I am also late to reply, but I have actually said this before in a job interview, because for one thing. . . I didn't like where the interview was going, and second, I hate how companies give very little description in their advertisements of what the heck you are actually applying for.

During the interview, the Employer mentioned something about my shoulder length hair at the time. He hinted around that nobody else here had long hair like mine, and that it might be inappropriate for the position. I said back to him. Well for you to say a comment like that to me, would be equivalent for me to make this statement. . . "You are overweight, so when you loose weight, then I'll cut my hair, because I don't want to be employed by someone who "appears" unprofessional. The bottom line is my hair or your weight has nothing to do with how well I perform with this position." He was shocked, but he knew it was the truth. . . (This is by no means to offend anyone here on the forums who have weight issues, this was merely a cheap way for me to defend my own image, by attacking someone's lol :D )

2 weeks later, I got a call to work for that company. . . I've noticed in life, that some people love it when you show them your "backbone" or whatever else you want to call "it" :D, while others may not. . . hehe. Those people that "push" and encourage you are the best employers. BTW
He did ask me for weight loss tips!

Aer
November 6th, 2009, 12:08 AM
I think a man or woman can have a neat pony tail and be professional. In fact I see this a lot in the area where I live. My husband has had a very neat and conservative pony tail when working at places. A woman can have long hair and look professional, I really don't see why it would be a problem if a guy does it. When I'm dealing with male professionals, doctors, lawyers, nurses,teachers, and lion tamers, I don't even note/notice if they have long hair or a pony tail. If I do notice, my thoughts aren't "That guy has long hair/pony tail" it's usually like " I wonder what shampoo they use?" or "Do they eats lots of jello?".