Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You use all those adjectives (condescending, chauvinistic, paternalistic) but I fail to see what is condescending, chauvinistic, or paternalistic about the OP of this thread. "Out of date fashion standards", yes, I see that. What he calls "men's haircuts" are obviously no longer that, since they have been embraced by some women now. That trend towards there being no more universal grooming standards is 50 or more years old now (think of earrings for men going back about that far). So the OP is guilty of clinging to his life-long concepts of men's and women's haircuts, which is no cause for anger and defensiveness. On the contrary, those of us of a certain age (I am 71) have certain concepts deeply embedded, which is not at all the same as being condescending, chauvinistic, or paternalistic. People could just say, "OP, you need to accept that people no longer abide by traditional styles of dress and grooming, that the world has been changing radically in that regard for a while now, and that is the way it is whether you find it jarring or not." How's that for a rational and objective take on the matter?
The OP's thread title and initial post were 'loaded', they were not innocent questions. The OP didn't just talk about hair length, but said: 'women with men's haircuts I don't get it?' It's kind of like asking someone "when did you stop beating your wife" which requires a person who never beat their wife to assert a defense to the question; immediately creating an adversarial relationship between the person who poses the question and the one responding. Language communicates far more effectively than we consciously think that it does. "women with men's haircuts" requires a woman to answer in one of a few ways "*********, it's none of your business" or "I have short hair but I don't have a man's haircut" or "women can have short hair and still look feminine" And he got all of those responses..more than once. Can't you see how loaded the OP's thread title and subsequent post were?
To hold your opinion is not rude--to publish it? That is rude.
No, it isn't. This whole thread is about opinions, as are many, perhaps the majority of the threads in this Retirement Forum. So stating our opinions in a post is simply normal procedure in a public internet discussion forum. Of course it is possible to state one's opinion in a rude fashion; one can be insulting, call the other person stupid, use foul language, and so forth, but I am not defending that.
It is not legitimate to censor other people's opinions with the appellation "rude" just because you do not agree with the opinion.
I'm repeating my rational and objective opinion here:
It's fine to repeat what you already wrote, but I was curious to know what you thought about my sample response to the OP, and I am still curious. If you don't wish to answer, that is fine too. None of us have to answer questions posed to us.
Escort Rider - perhaps I can explain the anger to you. For us women, from the time we can process ideas we are bombarded with the message that you are being judged by how you look, how pretty you are and what men think of you. I know that men also feel this pressure but not to the extent of women. Many of us were raised in the era where we were considered a failure if we didn't get married by age 25. We were taught that the opinion of men was very important to our existence and many of us have resented it. It may not be rational-but it is very real. Now that we have reached the age (and the cultural changes) where we don't care about strangers opinions (or at least not care as much) we do get angry when someone criticizes our looks.
Not all of us. I was raised in that era as well, in fact criticised highly and constantly as a young adult by my own mother for being independent and having my own mind(not feminine enough, would never find a man, or so she said), and I don't get angry at others' opinions. IMO they can think what they want, and I will still do what seems best to me, without worrying at all about what others think.
IMO, it just isn't productive to be angry about others expressing their opinions about things they have no control over. Just my two cents.
The OP's thread title and initial post were 'loaded', they were not innocent questions. The OP didn't just talk about hair length, but said: 'women with men's haircuts I don't get it?' It's kind of like asking someone "when did you stop beating your wife" which requires a person who never beat their wife to assert a defense to the question; immediately creating an adversarial relationship between the person who poses the question and the one responding. Language communicates far more effectively than we consciously think that it does. "women with men's haircuts" requires a woman to answer in one of a few ways "*********, it's none of your business" or "I have short hair but I don't have a man's haircut" or "women can have short hair and still look feminine" And he got all of those responses..more than once. Can't you see how loaded the OP's thread title and subsequent post were?
No, I do not see how "loaded" the OP's comments were. Since when is a woman having a "men's haircut" something wrong? It is not at all analogous to someone beating up someone else. All that needed to be said was that there is no such thing as a "men's haircut" anymore because the world of style and fashion has changed radically. That is the entire answer, actually. The people equating the negative opinion to men dictating to women are making stuff up out of whole cloth. This is not 1950 anymore, so what is the point of reacting as if it were?
I think 'men's haircuts' still exist. And people pretty much know what hair cuts and styles are being referred to by the original poster of the thread.
Perhaps the women the OP has been seeing are gay (lesbians). A certain number or a good number of lesbians sport 'men's haircuts'. And the fact that they are wearing 'men's haircuts' is obvious, and often the reason lesbians very much choose to wear them is to telegraph to the world that they are lesbian.
Gay women (and a few heterosexual women) wearing the haircuts want to tell the world that they are masculine or gender neutral or of a certain sexual persuasion or that they reject conventional norms for women. And some perhaps, that they are asexual. A few heterosexual women just like the look.
Last edited by matisse12; 11-22-2015 at 04:28 PM..
No, I do not see how "loaded" the OP's comments were. Since when is a woman having a "men's haircut" something wrong? It is not at all analogous to someone beating up someone else. All that needed to be said was that there is no such thing as a "men's haircut" anymore because the world of style and fashion has changed radically. That is the entire answer, actually. The people equating the negative opinion to men dictating to women are making stuff up out of whole cloth. This is not 1950 anymore, so what is the point of reacting as if it were?
No you can't claim it was just an innocent question, that's not true. The OP didn't have a question, he had an opinion that he wanted to express and thought it would appear less crass if he put it in the form of a question. There are topics like that all over C-D, they don't invite discussion, they do just the opposite. I can't tell you how many times I've seen this one: "How can anyone with a brain vote for XXX" it is in no way a question, it's a very judgmental remark with a question mark at the end of it.
No you can't claim it was just an innocent question, that's not true. The OP didn't have a question, he had an opinion that he wanted to express and thought it would appear less crass if he put it in the form of a question. There are topics like that all over C-D, they don't invite discussion, they do just the opposite. I can't tell you how many times I've seen this one: "How can anyone with a brain vote for XXX" it is in no way a question, it's a very judgmental remark with a question mark at the end of it.
Well, we do agree on something: I agree the OP was expressing an opinion about extremely short hair on women looking unattractive. That is not "loaded", that is just an opinion. He seemed to be implying that he was open to dissenting opinions, therefore the question. Whether he really was open deep down I do not know. But there is something very, very bizarre going on here. An opinion about a hair style all of a sudden becomes "condescending, chauvinistic, paternalistic," etc. That just doesn't make any sense.
If a woman posted how absurd men with comb-overs look, would that evoke the same flood of hostility? I seriously doubt it. It is an opinion, no more and no less. It wouldn't mean the poster was anti-male or any such thing. In fact, some women have posted that opinion in this thread, as if in rebuttal to the OP. Yet is not a rebuttal at all because they are two separate questions:
1. Do men with comb-overs look absurd, unattractive, etc.?
2. Do woman with extremely short hair look absurd, unattractive, etc.?
One could answer no to both, yes to both, or yes to one and no to the other, because one thing has nothing to do with the other - it is a matter of OPINION, and very subjective opinion at that. All opinions about style are inherently subjective, and style in any free country is in almost constant flux.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
