Thread: Discrimination against men with long hair at work

Originally Posted by Steve

And it's not truly an issue at all.

Most women shave their armpits and legs. Should an employer, because he prefers women who work for him to shave their legs and armpits, insist on the same from the men?

You didn't address the point.

First off, there are some women I've seen at work who don't shave their legs that often - it isn't looked upon as "badly" as long hair on men is. And no employer "requires" women to shave their legs the way they require men to cut their hair, one reason being legs can be covered up ...

Second, why should it be OK for an employer to say women can have long hair, but men can't? Just because thats how "things are currently done"?

There is no logic at work here.

Originally Posted by Beer

Yes. But, what if the employer fails to enact similar mandates on women with long hair?

That is the issue.

I agree. Good point.

Originally Posted by doniston

Sorry, Pi, but he is posting for the same reasons most of us are. As a kind of pastime. Certainly you can see that ---in him especially.

That is true, I just meant to say that if he's not got strong feelings on the issue, no need to argue it.

Originally Posted by Steve

It's only stupid if the conclusion is inaccurate.

But, stupid or not, it is what it is: People judge us by how we present ourselves. If you have a problem with that,, and vow not to conform, then you should probably come to grips with the fact that your professional future won't pan out the way you've hoped...

Well, finally a post from you I can agree with. I don't like your last sentence, but it is a fact, as of now at least.

Originally Posted by mpd8488

All that I was saying is that our appearances reflect on our personalities. It does not define your personality, but in the short time in which you interview your general appearance will have a huge effect on the first impression. Everyone's appearance and style reflects on them as individuals. We cannot help but use takes one's appearance, body language, and composure to try and get an idea of his or her personality.
Different people will work better in different work environments. For instance I work in a very relaxed environment and my company has no problem hiring people with long hair and other outlandish appearances if they think they will be an asset and do good things. Basically the only no-no is facial piercings. We look for people with wide arrays of personalities and this leads to some minor clashing which we need to keep our perspective wide. That situation may not work at other companies, though. Other companies function much better if everyone is in business attire everyday. It just depends, and it is important for both the employer and the prospective employee to find an environment that suits their tastes, personality, and ability.

It does not matter how qualified one is if they are not a match for the company.

I agree for the most part. I just wonder why people automatically tend to assume a man is not "conservative" if he has long hair ...

[QUOTE=doniston;972998]

Originally Posted by daisym

in theory, I get your point ... so that would mean also that if you don't like black/chinese/female/fat/old/young working with you - thats just discernment or personal taste, not discrimination ... and nobody has the right to challenge you?




I disagree with you here. I don't think tatts or piercings reflect a lack of integrity any more than poor colour coordination, tight clothes or wearing high heels.... savagely plucked eyebrows or serious depilation. Its a matter of taste, sometimes people suffer for the sake of style ... but thats a choice they make.

QUOTE] I'm just going to answer the two above portions becuse in other ways, O agree with you. However:

1. I don't think Racism was his intent at all

and

2. I never said I think tatts, etc reflect a lack of integrety. Rather it reflects my opinion of the rational of the person wearing them. I simply think that altering your body in such ways is a lack of respect for yourself, certainly nothing to be lauded. I feel the same way about Breast agmentation, and extreme Musclebuilding. Repair of abnormal defects is quite another thing however. (yeh, I know--- the eye of the beholder)

I don't think his intent was racism either. However, Daisy brought up a good point. If an employer can discriminate on the basis of eye color, hair, etc etc - whats to stop him from privately discriminating on the basis of skin color too, for instance? Or religious preferences? Or, just about anything?

[QUOTE=Pi Jiu;973374]

Originally Posted by doniston

I don't think his intent was racism either. However, Daisy brought up a good point. If an employer can discriminate on the basis of eye color, hair, etc etc - whats to stop him from privately discriminating on the basis of skin color too, for instance? Or religious preferences? Or, just about anything?

Nothing.

Originally Posted by WildMan

Nothing.

That is just ridiculous. You don't mind the employer having the ability to discriminate on the basis of anything and everything?

How about your employer doesn't like your beer belly tomorrow and decides to lay you off based upon this. Where would you draw the line?

Originally Posted by Pi Jiu

This is an issue which I have been thinking about for a long time, and feel strongly about.

What does everyone think about discrimination against men with long hair in the workplace? Is it fair? Should there be laws against it?

I do not believe it is fair, but unfortunately men are discriminated against because of their hairstyles. This holds true across all countries, and all workplaces, but hold ESPECIALLY true for those in business school, or at the management level, and even while getting jobs or being promoted at work.

Why exactly is a man's hairstyle more important than the job he does, or his qualifications? I have not been able to understand this absurd thinking in today's society.

I also think this is pure and simple bias, with no basis behind it. Why are women allowed to have long or short hair and get away with it, while men can't have long hair?

There are laws against discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, region and just about everything else - why not hair?

In fact, I recall a case which went to court once on this ...

(here is the link: USATODAY.com - Court: It's OK to fire woman who wouldn't wear makeup)



In conclusion, this is plain and simple bias, and should not be occuring in today's world. I am pretty sure all of the men on this forum who have long hair will understand what I am saying here ...

What does everyone think?

I bet the casino is thinking that a woman with no make up might not be looking her best to attract customers.

And there is a bias against men with long hair. I was a long hair once. So I definitely know the attitude. You are often viewed as a pot smoker by the Cops, which was true for me. But the ladies are not as discriminating.

Short hair and make up are just arbitrary standards for being well groomed. And I understand if a company wants to keep a certain appearance. In a business professional environment, long hair on men, doesn't look right. Especially with a tie. But most everywhere else it is not so out of place.

Originally Posted by Jihad4Beer

And there is a bias against men with long hair. I was a long hair when I was 19 and 20.

I fully agree. It's sad people have to be biased against hairstyles in this day and age.

Originally Posted by Pi Jiu

That is just ridiculous. You don't mind the employer having the ability to discriminate on the basis of anything and everything?

An employer enjoys the right to arbitrarily determine what the grooming standards for his company will be.

You don't have to like them, and you are free to seek employment elsewhere...

Originally Posted by Pi Jiu

I fully agree. It's sad people have to be biased against hairstyles in this day and age.

That's the way some people are. They are usually uptight aholes, who think you must be queer or on drugs. But in some places it doesn't matter and those places are always much better.

Originally Posted by Jihad4Beer

That's the way some people are. They are usually uptight aholes, who think you must be queer or on drugs. But in some places it doesn't matter and those places are always much better.

Agree with everything you say here.

Originally Posted by Steve

An employer enjoys the right to arbitrarily determine what the grooming standards for his company will be.

You don't have to like them, and you are free to seek employment elsewhere...

So, do you support the supposed right of an employer to arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of skin color, for instance? What if the employer decided he didnt want African Americans applying, for instance? Would you support that too?

Originally Posted by Pi Jiu

So, do you support the supposed right of an employer to arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of skin color, for instance? What if the employer decided he didnt want African Americans applying, for instance? Would you support that too?

As you've repeatedly proven here on USPOL, you are incapable of a meaningful argument.

One cannot change skin color.

One can get a fucking haircut.

An employer is free to choose to arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of skin color. He'll probably get his ass handed to him in a lawsuit, but he's free to choose to do it. I don't believe that an employer would have much to fear from a lawsuit which is based on discimination of a hairstyle...

Originally Posted by Pi Jiu

So, do you support the supposed right of an employer to arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of skin color, for instance?

No, I do not support that.

I do, however, support an employers right to discriminate against a man with long hair.

As previously stated, skin color can't be changed, but you can get a fuckin' haircut...