Your lucky, when I had long hair, I had to wash it, hairdry it for 30 minutes, and then straighten it for another 20 minutes, and that was to make it look "ok". All depends on what type of hair you have.
It's funny when people try to justify that looking like a rebel is ok, even if you plan to attend a school where you are expected to look & act like a gentleman
I can't determine from the article (maybe I'm blind), but was the school a private school or a public one? I believe if it was a public school, where he is forced to go, they have no standing to force him to cut his hair. However, IF it was a private school, no problem at all, he can pack up and leave. But yeah, he looks like a bit of a greaseball from that photo...
Not everyone with long hair dopes/tanks up, listens to melodic speed- or death-metal, and causes mischief. And that's the misconception that's at the heart of this issue. What about the late Paul Hunter? He was long-haired for most of his snooker career, but that was never an indication of poor mannerisms. You just don't know someone until you've met them and appearances should never be taken for granted.
When I had long hair people did the same kind of **** until I finally cut it. I say good for him standing up to them, I wish I would have. It wasn't like I was a drug peddling rapist or anything, I was a pre-med student... People just have a weird stigma about males with long hair.
That's not the point, is it. At school you're supposed to conform to a dress code, it's all part of the oppressive regime that is designed to mould you into a functional unit, much like the military. If you don't conform to the dress code, you're being rebellious; a person who says 'no' to the rules in one aspect is likely to say no in other aspects, and hence is usually regarded a "trouble maker" or as you put it someone who "dopes up" and causes mischief. That snooker player was not at school, there is no dress code, by having long hair he isn't being non-conforminst and subsequently is not regarded to be any kind of deviant. I had my hair short at school, and was a quiet studious individual. I have my hair long now (in a pony tail) and I am still the quiet studious individual I allways was, the only thing that changed was the regime within which I existed, and thus the attitudes towards my appearance.
Correct me if i'm wrong but snooker has very very strict dress codes, they were only allowed to wear advertising on thier waist coats a few years ago. The point is that this is sexist and trying to impose Victorian ideas on people hundreds of years too late. If you brought in a rule that said all pupils must have their hair short that would be one thin but to say boys should have short hair and girls should have long smacks of sugar and spice/slugs and snails thinking. The world has moved on schools like this give every one a bad name, when i was a school the only dress code, beyond health and safety, was no jeans and no shell suites. Jeans to try and stop bullying the cool kids has levis the rest had matalan. The shell suites rule was their to stop children bursting into flames in the science labs.
I don’t think the object of school policy on long hair is, 100% at least, to do with enforcing gender stereotypes or discouraging social stereotypes. It’s surely that uniform (make-up, jewellery, hair as well as clothing) policy is designed to ingrain obedience to rules. It seems a trivial rule to have to obey but it subtly influences the way kids will behave to Laws in the real world. Whether they choose to ignore or conform its still an import lesson on how rules/laws set by a legitimate authority, however daft you think it may be, work. Ignore laws in the “real world” and you are punished/excluded, it has to be the same in schools.
If it had been a comprehensive school then I’d side with the kid, as he would have no choice in attending. the Ballyclare High from the article seems to be a grammar school, i.e. its normally selective and you normally pay to go, therefore you must be signing up to their terms and conditions, now where's the scissors.
Enforcing rules to help children learn, good. To help them learn to be good little automatons... what is this soviet Russia? Laws in the real world are about real consequences, don't stab people its bad they get hurt you go to prison. Children should be taught to respect rules by understanding why a rule exists, the rules are rules argument that adults have doesn't work with young children and simply infuriates older children. Adult: Don't DO that! Child: Why Not? A: Because C: Why? A: Cut your hair! C: Why? A: Cause its the rules C: ???? Another thought: if they are not enforcing ancient stereo types, why is it against the rules for boys to have long hair?
As i was saying b4 boys & girls, some schools expect boys to "...LOOK & act like a gentleman" Most bars have a dress code, and these bars will not let you in with thongs & a singlet, no matter how polite you are - it's a dress code. If a school has a dress code, then it has to be followed or cya later. It's just like having a pron avatar - it doesn't matter how full of wisdom or how nice you are, the avatar must conform to the guidlines or else! I'm running out of analogies now...
I haven’t read all the thread so this point might already have been made. His hair is no longer than the average female, so with equal rights and all that shouldn’t he be allowed to have his hair long too? my personal view is that if the school want you to cut your hair, do it. as its already been said if you don’t like the rules, leave.
I was always told to cut my hair at school. I just ignored them. Never got suspended for it though Why does he have to be a Rock fan though? Why can't he just be a kid with long hair? ****ing stereotypes!
Every day we conform to laws, by-laws, rules and restrictions. We are in no way “free” but agree to abide by certain laws in order to live in a Western Democracy. I agree that the “long male hair = undesirable” idea is an old stereotype. But the school is a product of the society it exists in. Steveo, you’re a bloke, I’m assuming that though, as Steve is, stereotypically a male name. Am I enforcing an ancient stereotype? Not enforcing, perpetuating at worst. I don’t think a Grammar school founded in the early 1900’s is sort of place that will stand out at the bleeding edge of 21st Century social and cultural etiquettes/rules?
The point is that the rules that are enforced as laws by-laws etc are there for a reason, to enable society to function. I cannot stab thee. Rules regarding the state of a man's hair do not allow society to function any more smoothly, these are arbitrary rules applied to one sex and not the other. Ignoring all other arguments thats a clear breach of human rights, sex equality regulations etc etc. Back to the rules. We do agree to live by these rules by following them (implicit agreement), we do have a choice to disregard them, i can stab thee, however I must face the consequences. That law exists to protect you from me. The rule to have your hair below a certain length is arbitrary and is only enforcing a stereo type, i would suspect said stereotype came about from national service. The army also has certain rules regarding your appearance and these serve a function, your hair is short to prevent lice etc being spread in close quarters, but this is the 21st century and this isn't the army. Yes I am a bloke but there are no rules to say i must be.
The problem with short hair is that is linked to violence(even if just a percived threat rather than an actually) I went to scoundary school in a rundown inner city part of machester, Before our old head started there they was a real problem with gang violence in school(and it was a failing school) the gangs used to identify each other by what they wore/hairstyles. When they brought in the stricter school uniform policy it turned the school around pretty much overnight. It is now a beacon school my old head got made a dame for the work she did there. Uniform do help in schools and i agree with haveing a uniform policies but not leting a lad have long hair is just downright sexism at work.
Guys, this isn't a matter of rebellion. The problem is the institution's misinformed assumption that the student is incapable of receiving an education due to his appearance. I personally haven't seen the photo of him, but the what the school has done is utterly stupid. It has nothing to do with rebellion.
I distinctly remember an assembly at school where we were told it was now OK to take of our jumpers as it was considered summer, fortunately they never seemed to really enforce this rule as I for one tended to take my jumper off whenever I felt warm. It's my body temperature so I'll regulate it how I like thankyou very much! The uniform I could cope with, just about, saying when girls could wear tights or trousers, when boys could wear jumpers, or the length of your hair, all steps too far in my opinion. We had a kid with hair that long at school for many years, I'm not aware that it got him in trouble.
I agree its an arcane rule. And Law in general is designed to protect us from ourselves/others. “Acceptable” appearance/stereotypes are dictated to by tastes and fashion of the past and change slowly, regardless of their origin we still accept them. Would you expect to see a Household Cavalry officer or a judge with goatee, pony tail, “SCUM” tattooed on their forehead and a noise ring? There’s nothing to dictate “Steve” is a boys name but most of accept it is. But I’m sure most of us have a giggle when a celeb name their kid after a fruit or we see a bloke in a dress or lass with a ‘tash (happens a lot up here, closer to Halifax tho). I know long hair doesn’t affect your ability to learn, the school certainly knows that he is capable of learning regardless of hair length (sex, age, colour) but this rule is about appearance at a certain Institution. Institutions can dictate rule if it wants (it is a fee [just about] paying Grammar school).
