Have you noticed that after the feminist movement, hair just kept on getting shorter. I feel that women are measuring themselves up to mens standards. By cuttign your hair short, its a struggle with feminity. Why can;t web be strong intelligent women, why be a man?
Also as you age and lose your female hormones, your voice becomes deeper...you start to tend to grow more facial hair. Wouldn't having a helmet-like hair cut only make you more manly? If I were 65, I woudl wnat to hold onto whatever womanhood I have left...and that is my long hair. Defy the masses. Be a strong woman, not a strong man!

I agree...I don't see many "older" women with long hair, and I wish I did.  There is one lady I see at church sometimes, maybe in her sixties, possibly 70, who has mid-back length hair.  It is darkish grey and naturally wavy (so it seems).  She wears it pulled back from her face half-up/down, and it looks lovely.  Granted, I don't know if my hair would look that good at her age... she must have GREAT hair genes...

I have heard that your hair can thin as you get older???  I hope and pray that doesn't happen to me, so that I will always be able to wear long hair.  It is SOOOOOOOO womanly.

To be honest, I don't like that long hair is so strongly associated with femininity, and long haired people are nearly automatically seen as feminine. This disturbed me quite a lot before I started to grow my hair- so much that I almost didn't start it  :o .

The reason is simple: I'm not mentally a woman. Physically yes, but mentally I'm sexual neutral. Most people recognize that subconsciously- only places where I've ever had trouble of my gender are certain health care officials and my mother who will always see me as soa weird kid who hasn't quite lived up to certain expectations.  ::) I digress. I was afraid, that if I grew my hair long, that comfy situation would change and people would start to treat me like a woman and assume that I think like a woman (there's nothing wrong with that, of course- but I believe that you feminine ladies wouldn't certainly like if people suddenly started to treat you as if you were manly men ;) ).
       But, luckily it didn't happen. I discovered, that people still treat me as they always have, and there were no sudden misconceptions.  :)

I can only reason, that we continuously express our gender identities in a complex manner- a woman's hair can be long or short, but if she is a true woman, it will always show in a million ways. Even if there is one or a few conflicting signals like short hair, we interpret people by judging the majority of signals. We should also keep in mind, that though there are two sexes -male and female- , there are four genders (add neutral and androgyn). Nowadays, that society doesn't force people to fit neatly into one of two strict molds that regulate appearance as well as behavior, people like me who have never fit into either, have more room to live and express our gender in our behavior and appearance. Androgyns and sexual neutrals aren't super rare, after all- so part of the phenomenon of gender division becoming ambiguous may be in part that people like myself can be ourselves freely instead of being people who "don't fit in" or "know how to behave appropriately".
        On the other hand, I would be cautious in drawing analogies between societal change and hairstyles: most women don't think of their hair much. They visit a salon every month just because they are used to, they listen to stylists who want to chop their hair because they believe that stylists are professionals who can be trusted...and most women have taken subtle hints of salon industry well and associate long hair with unkempt and difficult hair that is deadly boring and short hair with nice easy hair that is easy to change. That's what they've been told, and disagreeing voices are still very small. Most women really think that short hair is easiest and nicest hair a person can have.

If femininity -or masculinity- for that matter, are struggling, that's happening in a very deep societal level, and probably much less on a level of everyday experience. Maybe some people are a bit lost as readymade molds have become weaker- but, I can't think that that's a bad thing because instead of just conforming more and more people are forced to think of who they really are- and that's a path that leads to understanding and knowledge.

wrote on Aug 25^th, 2005 at 12:48am:

Defy the masses. Be a strong woman, not a strong man!

Well put, Sara!

I'm mostly with Galadriel on this.

I really just don't get those stereotypes.  I think long hair is nice because hair is nice, it's sensual and yes, it's often sexy (but it doesn't have to be).  

I also wore short hair many times in my life without any intent to be "masculine".  This includes almost ten years of a semi buzz cut which I thoroughly enjoyed and felt I looked totally feminine in (just for back up, my husband thought it looked really good too).  Then there is the fact that I find long hair on very many men extremely attractive and no less masculine looking.

Must admit that I somewhat agree with Sara. welcome Sara that people, either gender, trying to be, look and act like another gender is not often successful to their intent.  Just be whoever you are including if you are in the middle, in transition, or waaaaaay over to one side or the other and I think most things work out for the best ...

Interesting topic of conversation ...g

I usually see long hair as sensual or sexy - but on either sex - not just feminine.  There are many examples of "sexy men" with long hair - of course their names escape me at the moment, but think romance novels.  Frequently men are portrayed with longer, flowing hair.

Stereo types want to place long hair as feminine, but I don't think it is necessarily true in society in general.  There are too many other signals that a person sends out that dictate who that person is - male, female, sexy or not, outgoing, reclusive, etc.

Great topic for discussion.

As to older women with long hair, I think we need to remember as people get older they tend to go back to what was popular when they were young.  It's a comfort thing.  Women in their 60s and 70s now grew up with setting their hair and long hair was associated with those "crazy hippies" or beatnicks as they were known back then.  It's hard to break stereotypes learned when we were young.  Women in their 40s and 50s I notice either have short "liberated" hairstyles inspired by the feminist movement of the 70s or the long straight style popular with those living a more casual relaxed lifestyle.  And I believe as those of us who grew up in the 1980s get older there will be a return to large long hair that is so comfortable to us.  I can just see myself at 80 telling the stylist "NO!  I want my hair bigger!"

Some how this makes me feel verrrrrry old.    :-/

Well i think men with long hair look nice. Also did you notice how it was really thsi century when men started cutting their hair short?  
I hate it when someone sees a man with long hair and says oh he looks girly or unkempt. As for the long hair on women and short hair, I sort of what I think to :On the other hand, I would be cautious in drawing analogies between societal change and hairstyles: "most women don't think of their hair much. They visit a salon every month just because they are used to, they listen to stylists who want to chop their hair because they believe that stylists are professionals who can be trusted...and most women have taken subtle hints of salon industry well and associate long hair with unkempt and difficult hair that is deadly boring and short hair with nice easy hair that is easy to change. That's what they've been told, and disagreeing voices are still very small. Most women really think that short hair is easiest and nicest hair a person can have. "- Galadriel
I feel like most people have ben barainwashed and it has lead to te androgeny thing. The issue is that I feel like my values are being attacked. And when I tell people I like being a woman who is strong but womanly, they automatically look at my hair and they bring up the 1950s. I would not wnat to be cleaing the kitchen all day thank you. I just feel liek bringing back an element of womanhood that is dying out and I'm not forcing it on others. However, I feel like western society's short-haired man-standarded wya of life is imposing ist wya on me :(
Thats all I meant. Long hair helsp me cling onto my individuality in thsi one way. Plus it feels nice :P

"Women in their 60s and 70s now grew up with setting their hair and long hair was associated with those "crazy hippies" or beatnicks as they were known back then.  It's hard to break stereotypes learned when we were young "-ChiliPepper

That is true in some instances. But you knwow hat. I'm going to side with the hippies seeing as how I have much in common with hem. Too bad theres not too many left. We're all scattered..

I'm still mostly in the opinion that alot of people are brain washed by the media and they just don't realize it.

"There are many examples of "sexy men" with long hair - of course their names escape me at the moment, but think romance novels.  Frequently men are portrayed with longer, flowing hair. "-Bikerbraid
I have many pictures that i wish I could shouw you!

For some reason it adds to the "manliness" too.

Btw, I love your hair Bikerbraid and before I trimmed it, it was your length (and we both ahve fine hair)...its almost there again though. When I take it out of a braid, it looks alot like yours too.  I feel like braiding your hair now...

hmmm
I haven't sorted through all the sociological implications mentioned here.
So my 2 cents is really just that. Part of why I'm letting my hair grow long is the feminity of it for me.  Short hair just doesn't seem to work that way for me - or at least there's only been one short style that really did and after I moved away from that hairdresser I couldn't get it repeated by any other stylist.  :(
In very narrow circumstances I appreciate men with long hair -- in the fantasy worlds of say a Ren Faire, or a movie.  I have also appreciated a scout leader's long hair in 2 braids a.k.a. Willie Nelson style.  But generally I'm not sure what to think about, or what is trying to be said by men with long hair -- probably nothing more than what I think about mine, I just like it. ::)

BTW, NR, I appreciate your participation on this board, helps to mellow out my middle-aged rut ;)

wrote on Aug 25^th, 2005 at 10:28pm:

Btw, I love your hair Bikerbraid and before I trimmed it, it was your length (and we both ahve fine hair)...its almost there again though. When I take it out of a braid, it looks alot like yours too.  I feel like braiding your hair now...

Thank you.  :D  I'd love to have someone braid my hair (and I'd be happy to braid yours!).

wrote on Aug 25^th, 2005 at 3:45pm:

Some how this makes me feel verrrrrry old.    :-/

I understand.  Sometimes I forget there are grown-ups out there who can't remember Reagan being president and I have a little trouble with the 80s being considerred retro.  Now I know how my mother felt when told me to quit listening to the Beatles and get my own music.

BB-I hope I didn't offend you.  I only meant my comments to be generalizations not specifically directed at anyone :-[

[quote author=ChiliPepper link=1124934513/0#12 date=1125034077]BB-I hope I didn't offend you.  I only meant my comments to be generalizations not specifically directed at anyone :-[/quote]

No offense taken!  There are some things that just make you stop and realize you aren't the 25 year old that you sometimes think you still are!

Yes, my nephews and my child bring that to my attention more everyday.  

I must say that I'm finding this thread a very fascinating discussion. In fact, I've re-read the entire thread again this morning.

Funny how societal trends and stereotypes exists even for us longhairs.  For example, when I read the first post, my mind conjured images of a constrasting nature: the stern, bob-cut, over-the-top feminist and the free, eco-friendly, hippie girl. Very limiting stereotypes, I admit, but that is what came into my head. So, even I, as a long hair, associate flowing tresses with some ideal of femininity.

Do not misunderstand, short cuts can be extremely cute and very good looking as well; dare, I even say "sexy". Here, again though, my first instinct is to use the "cute" with a short cut on the better gender.

What's the point of all this rambling? Long hair, I think, might go beyond a simple stereotype. In history, painting, literature, women generally have long hair and this has become ingrained in all of us. In the past (heck even sometimes today) women would show their grief over loss by cutting their hair. In the 20s, the "bob" was the rage and initially rather scandalous. In medieval times (and perhaps earlier, though I can't be sure), young unmarried women left their hair long and free flowing; as soon as they were married, the hair was hidden.

Now, as for men and long hair, I think there is a an opposite effect. For the most part, historically the norm was for short hair. Can't easily put your head into a knight's helmet with long tresses. The roman man typically did not have long hair either. Somewhere between the 16th and 18th centuries, men wore wigs to simulate long hair. Many of these examples are the upper classes, no one can be positive about the lower classes. We can think of some long hairs, most germanic tribes, the celts, and the scots probably had long hair. And what did the ruling classes think of these folks? They were barbarous, unfit, outcasts.

Just some thoughts that I thought might contribute to this great thread.

Long hair on men was more typical in history than most think.  Even in the US, long hair on men was not uncommon for the "common folk" into the early 20th century.  I read somewhere (drat, I can't find it now) that WWI was significant in creating the men's short hair as the typical style out of necessity, which of course, carried on after the war as the service men realized the shorter hair was easier to care for.

Yes, military tradition has affected a lot to men's hairstyles.

If you look at medieval and renaissance paintings, many men wear bob type cuts. Before modern age, most people -men as well as women- haven't been able to afford going to a barber, and cuts were simple, practical and such that could be easily done at home. Though maintaining gender distinction was important, hairstyles were "bowl head cuts" (that are still worn by eg. Amish men) and bob type cuts.

In military, on the other hand, it was important to keep lice away, so shaving hair or getting extremely short cuts came in fashion. After wars, short cuts were made a bit more elaborate, and men got used to have their hair cut in salon. Now, medieval hair lengths are considerd rather longish on men.

I've always believed that how one wears their hair should be based on how they want to wear their hair- some ladies look fabulous in short hair,and some men look downright sexy in long hair.
Now- having said that-I'm always very pleased when I see an older lady with long hair- their is something special about it. I saw a lady at my old church with  beautiful snow white braided bun- It looked so pretty and elegant.  I think long hair suits most older ladies.
I think a lot of older women labor under the impression they can't wear their hair long- perhaps due to societal
pressure- but also b/c they may be thinning, or think they have to dye or perm their hair.  Some people have a hard time growing out dyed hair(me). I've come to the conclusion I've either got to go natural and grow long- or keep it short and colour it. My hair is just too fragile to grown long while I keep up the dyeing.
And the texture of grey hair can be different from pigmented hair, so they think they can't grow that out and have it look good. They usually don't have the long haired boards for support- so they think they have no choice but to keep it short.
I personally know people who say- I can't grow it out its too thin- grey-hard to manage,ect.
Long hair is easier in many ways as far as daily styling,but can be more work as far as keeping it in good condition, too.
My 80 years old Aunt, who loves to travel with my uncle, deliberatly keeps her hair very short and permed b/c she says she doesn't have to mess around styling it when she goes on trips to Europe,ect.
Women of my mom's and aunts generation wore their hair permed , styled and hairsprayed in their heyday-so they will usually continue to wear it that way. as an above poster pointed out. My dear mother in law (who passed this year at 93) wore her hair short and permed or curled all her life. I saw a picture of her in Marcel waves via about 1930's- looked good the idea of growing her hair long was foriegn to her.

I think most men- with rare exception( and this is just my opinion of course!!) look good with a little hair- that shaggy, unkempt sexy look long short or mid-length hair.
I was sad when dh cut his shaggy curls so short now b/c he's thinning on top!!  

I'm jumping in on this conversation a bit late.  But it is an interesting topic.

For me, long hair and womanhood vary on a case-by-case business.  Some may feel like their femininity is based upon their long, flowing hair, others may feel like their sense of womanhood comes from their clothing, body, makeup, fashion, etc.

In a strange way, I'm glad that ALL women don't wear their hair long.  It makes us stand out.

Okay, this is for you NR.  Despite my earlier comments, I saw a long hair guy from the back today and I thought it looked good -- then I realized his hair was similar to yours in color and texture!  See, you're mellowing me ;)

Babyfine- my grandmother who died a few weeks before her 100th birthday this year also had short permed hair almost her entire life.  In fact she got one of the first perms ever done in her town (a dollar a curl, 75 curls!  and that would have been ~1921)

Panpeus - I agree, I'm glad not everyone has long hair so we stand out more :D

DH has had a full beard most of our marriage, which I love.  So I guess I do like "hairy" men, just a different distribution ;D

I have often wondered about the styles-hair and clothing- of the working classes in earlier times.  It seems we have records of mostly the wealthy people, for obvious reasons.  I tend to think whatever hairstyles they had were very practical.  They had to work so long and so hard every day I doubt they had time, money,  or energy to be fussing over hair very much.

Precious Locks, thank-you for the great compliment, although, I wasn't in the least taken aback by your previous posting. Still, thank-you for the lovely compliment.

Many have mentioned WWI as a defining moment for men and short hair. I am most curious as to what the basis for this is? I am do not recall many (or any) images of men prior to WWI with long or even longish hair? I do not mean this as a challenge, I only wish enlightenment. Nothing in my recollection (and granted it is tarnished at my ripe age) provides images of men with long hair with minor exceptions, (i.e. Buffalo Bill, Custer...) post civil war.

I would guess, unless someone corrects my poor memory, that most working class individuals (peasants, share croppers, serfs, etc.) probably chopped their hair to avoid interfering with their work.

I look forward to more debate and insight on this topic.

ETA Corrected a typo.

Well, I think wehat they hsow in history si sometimes deliberately not shown. Like showing men with long hair may conjure up ideas which are generally socially unacceptable for hwo a man should appear. Again, I  hope I dont sound like too much of a conspiracy theorist, but alot of times things are conveniently left out so that people won't get  ideas.The reason for thsi is becasue if one small htign begins...it leads to others. There were plently of men prior to WW2 who hadl ong hair maybe just below the shoulder and ket ina pony tail. Alot of times as mentioned before, it was men of the working class and below. I also htink that there wa also a significant drop in long haired men after the 1800s as well. But WW2 was indeed marking point for convenience hair cuts.

I don't know...but I feel like evrything is conveneice nowadays. Oh if only people knew how fesh churned butter and frehs baked bread tasted like compareed to pre-mad ehtings. The same goes for hair. People wnat somethign fats and easy and dont want to work hard for something. In essence, i think society in general has become lazy.

I can't believe I missed this until now.  

I'll be back when I have more time to add my 2 cents, because it was getting really long and I'm gonna be late.   ::)

Precious Locks- a dollar a curl-75 curls=$75.00- amI thinking right?  In 1921 that was a lot of money!!!
My MIL also had thick hair(well for a 93 year old) up until she died. Her two daughters(my SIL) are late 50's and early 60's and have thick hair as well.
My momwears her hair in a chin length bob- is 79 and it it just now starting to thin at the part I noticed.
I had one grandma on my dads side that died age 94- but she was nearly bald-Her hair started thinning in her 50-60's and I also remember her wearing a wig when I was a little girl- I hop I don't inherit those hair genes!
I think mabe the daily wig wearing may have exacerbated her alopecia, though.

The option of growing my hair out long is just... completely essential to me.  I feel feminine with long locks.  It's just so comfortable and natural to me, even if I don't wear my hair down every day.  

I don't think from a woman's standpoint that to be an assertive female you must have short hair.  I've actually found that men respect me more FOR having long hair.  Granted, I'm not climbing the corporate ladder and I can't say I've hit the "glass ceiling" either, but I think in the feminist movement some have struggled so hard to be on the same plane as men that they've forgotten the respect due to us just because we are women.

For my part, I've noticed men listen to me more often when my hair's down.  ???  Why, I'm not really sure, but I've also noticed that they're more likely to open doors and grant those little niceties of a time gone by.  Why?

Well, I think men have come to a point that (for the most part.. there are some exceptions  :P) they can now view women in the workplace, on a even playing field with themselves.  That is due (with many many thanks) to the strong and assertive women who came before us, who fought for our right to vote, our right to work, our right to be both mothers and careerists.  But just because we have shown that we can be assertive doesn't necesarrily mean we have to rush out and make ourselves *look* the part

As women, we have gradually and wonderfully taught men to respect us, but I think we needn't be rough around the edges to prove it.  Whether your hair is long short or inbetween, we have all worked so hard to garner the respect that is due to us.  It's just my opinion that my "traditionally" feminine looks can hold just as much merit as the buzz-cut feminist activist.

... that's not saying if you have a buzz cut you're a feminist activist... I was just making a broad visual generalization there....

Well said, novusfemina!

Nicely put.

There's a book that's based upon many of the topics we've discussed.  It's called The Beauty Myth:  How Images of Beauty are Used Against Women.  By Naomi Wolf.  Definately worth checking out if you find this thread interesting.

Babyfine -- yes, you're thinking right, but I swear that is the family story!  I have no idea how or why she would have paid that much money.

I've got to go find NR's party -- I'm missing a good one -- although I just came from a pretty good RL party this afternoon.

Yes NovusFemina!!! This is how I feel...you hit the dollar!

Just found this thread today :) I have to agree with Panpeus on this. The more people with "short" hair, the better off we longhairs are for the admiration/attention/specialness of having long hair that stands out. We can't change people, but we can certainly inspire them.

However I think the bigger issue here is not that any group of people would be better-respected or better-off with a certain hair length. The majority of people are rather happy with whatever length they currently have. These short-haired women aren't complaining, especially if they've had short hair all their lives.

...... but I notice that most people could use a little more happiness with their hair in general: with the quality, length, and texture. There's a severe shortage of "Western-society" women with sufficiently HEALTHY hair.

Anais

added half a sentence

You are right, its is better if  we are the *special* ones. And yes the people in the third world countries tend to have better hair -_-.

Thank you Bikerbraid and Sara!!!

And Anais, I second that!  We sorta... "look" healthy in the US but sometimes I think it's all on the outside... there's so much we can "fake" to make us look healthy.  Though, hair extensions?  Yeah, I can see those coming.....  :P

((edited to make things move! hehehehe, I finally figured it out, so I just had to try.... ;D))

Hummm that book sounds interesting.
You know, i feel very natural nd at ease with long hair and the feminity taht adds on to it in my point of view (for me at least). Ye syoucan chop of my hair and I will still look female...but there will be somthing missing. Like in india how woman who have sinned cut their hair...there i somethign sacred about long hair to me. When I had it trimmed ,I cried because I felt naked. Now ith the longer length i feel complete again.
People don't realize that hair is a part of the body, and by urging u to chop it off is like urging us to give up a  cherished piece of ourselves. They make it seem taht its selfish to keep all that hair to ourslves. Welll sorry, but people have been keeping their long hair for thousands of years. I am not going to give up my hair. Besides, I think it needs to be thicker to donate...lucky me.

PS Your welcome Novusfemina :)

hmm, all day and I still can't sum up all my thoughts on this.  It has really brought up a lot of questions for me to ponder and yet more fun conversations on gender and how we present ourselves so that others will view us the way we want to be seen.  

But for me it comes down to I like my hair, and keep it long because it is best for me.  I don't feel it makes me more feminine, I feel it makes me...more me.  The women I know with short hair don't have short hair to climb the corporate ladder or to fit in with or to relate with men.  They have short hair because they like it, and it makes them feel more like themselves.  

Well, for me I think that some people cut their hair becaus ethey like it and most becuase its whats socially acceptable and fashionable.

Novusfemina, you have so nicely summed up what I had attempted and failed to write down 4 times shortly after this thread started. Great job.

What a wonderful topic.

I just want to say that I feel my long hair is a part of my asertiveness to be an independantly thinking woman.

A couple of women at work (my job is at a library and 95% of the employees are female) suggested that now that I lost a lot of weight (and, you know, I'm in my 40's and all), that I should cut my hair, being as I was most likely hiding behind it because of how heavy I was.

I actually thought about it for awhile, and that's when I cut off my last 4-5".

Needless to say, I have come to my senses again and won't being doing that again anytime soon.  

8)

*excuse spelling errors, I got a thingymabob stuck in the middle of my post and tried to correct it.   :P

wrote on Aug 28^th, 2005 at 9:31pm:

What a wonderful topic. I just want to say that I feel my long hair is a part of my asertiveness to be an independantly thinking woman. A couple of women at work (my job is at a library and 95% of the employees are female) suggested that now that I lost a lot of weight (and, you know, I'm in my 40's and all), that I should cut my hair, being as I was most likely hiding behind it because of how heavy I was. I actually thought about it for awhile, and that's when I cut off my last 4-5". Needless to say, I have come to my senses again and won't being doing that again anytime soon.   8) *excuse spelling errors, I got a thingymabob stuck in the middle of my post and tried to correct it.   :P

I also work in a predominantly female office.  Isn't it wonderful the advice we'll give each other?!

Almost everyone knows how attached I am to my hair, and that suggesting a cut is no laughing matter.  But I did get a comment the other day that I was welcome to this gals fashion magazines for ways to make my hair not look 'old'.  Oh well, I'm sure someday they'll figure out that not everyone has to look just like them.  

I know! They think that we wnat to look like carbon capies of the next person. These people actually believe that if we admantly state that we like our hair long, we are secretly longng to cut it. What the sense in this, I know not. Perhaps they are afraid of someone who has a stronger sense of individuality. Secretly they envy us (at least a good deal of them). I say let them be short-haired and we shall be the eilte!

I've been noticing more people with long(er) hair again, recently, and of all ages.  Not too many with rapunzel hair though.
A collegue, whom I always thought was older than I, remarked that she cut her hair when her mother told her she was getting too old for her long hair in the french braid.  I found out later she is my age! :-X  As long as she doesn't regret it, it's okay.  It does look good on her - I liked it longer too, but it's her hair.

I do think the culture's definition of long hair is limited though.  Anything at shoulder length or longer is "long", but most of the time it isn't even BSL, and it is a bit difficult to do updos at shoulder length, especially when there are usually layers in it.  No wonder people think long hair is too much hassle!  Not long enough for easy updos, and too long to stay out of your face when you're working :P

Good thought-provoking topic and great comments here ;D

wrote on Aug 28^th, 2005 at 11:07pm:

I know! They think that we wnat to look like carbon capies of the next person. These people actually believe that if we admantly state that we like our hair long, we are secretly longng to cut it. What the sense in this, I know not. Perhaps they are afraid of someone who has a stronger sense of individuality. Secretly they envy us (at least a good deal of them). I say let them be short-haired and we shall be the eilte!

Very well put!  Here is suburbia everyone looks the same--same clothes, same cars, same hair.  I get more than my fair share of staring because my hair is red, wonder what people will do when its long.

wrote on Aug 28^th, 2005 at 9:31pm:

What a wonderful topic. I just want to say that I feel my long hair is a part of my asertiveness to be an independantly thinking woman. A couple of women at work (my job is at a library and 95% of the employees are female) suggested that now that I lost a lot of weight (and, you know, I'm in my 40's and all), that I should cut my hair, being as I was most likely hiding behind it because of how heavy I was. I actually thought about it for awhile, and that's when I cut off my last 4-5". Needless to say, I have come to my senses again and won't being doing that again anytime soon.   8) *excuse spelling errors, I got a thingymabob stuck in the middle of my post and tried to correct it.   :P

Gah Gah - gimme their address - I have my baseball bat , grrrrrrr.

That's such a typical thought though isn't it.  

Great comments here and I don't have time to be as thorough right now.

One of the things that occur to me though ... long hair put up is at least as exposing as short hair, so how does the theory of hiding fit there; also, what is so bad about hiding occasionally?  I think it's rather convenient to be able to lean forward and space out without anyone the wiser at times.

I do think it can be unfortunate if someone thinks all they are and have is their hair - but as long as things are somewhat in perspective all those cliches that are supposed to be negative are actually just an occasional option ...g

wrote on Aug 28^th, 2005 at 11:07pm:

I know! They think that we wnat to look like carbon capies of the next person. These people actually believe that if we admantly state that we like our hair long, we are secretly longng to cut it. What the sense in this, I know not. Perhaps they are afraid of someone who has a stronger sense of individuality. Secretly they envy us (at least a good deal of them). I say let them be short-haired and we shall be the eilte!

It's all over our society.. I guess people just don't mind conforming all the time?  In the back of my "Glamor" magazine they had a huge section on "do's and don'ts" of fashion throughout your lifespan... they actually said that if you're over thirty, you should have shorter than waist length hair.   Said Crystal Gayle is an entertainer, not a role model...  ::)

I just want to be like.. look, wear your hair how you want it, just take care of it.  Long, short, however you like... just be true to YOURSELF.

((By the way, thank you, Rogue.  8)))

I have to say I'm amazed, once again, although this time I'm not filing it away as low percentage event. This idea that women of a "certain" age should or must cut their hair is absolutely ludicrous! I've read before on this board and other places where others, generally short haired folks, are telling long hairs to shorten their hair. I confess, I sort of thought "well this odd, this doesn't really happen as much as is stated in this or that thread". But, reading all your comments like this tells me this is waaaay too pervasive.

Who are these, pardon my rant, dimwits? I'll tell you, they are the same people who religiously follow all the latest trends and are drones like the majority of society. Whew! Got that off my chest.

Who makes up these *rules* that a woman under 30 can have long hair, but over 30 it's wrong? I am completely stunned that so many of you lovely hair goddesses have encountered this stupid idea. I'm completely flabbergasted.

Have we learned nothing about celebrating the power of individuality? Of expression? Of tolerance? Do that many not recognize that variety and meaningful exchange and freedom bring a wealth to our society?

::goes away shaking his head::

We are, after all, an enlightened society ;) ??? ::)

My goodness! they tell the students in school..."oh you shoudl be an individual." And the same people who sya thsi do thinsg like cut their hair short or assimilate completely. So is it beign an individual within the realms of whats "normal?" You knwo alot of people try to be individuals and end up being just liek others. For isntance people relay get into gothic style, but don;t realize (im only talkign baout the peopel who wnat to be drasctially diff. but if thats your style and you like it because you think ist nice.. well ok)that theya re a copy of evry other "goth." Do they even know that a true goth is agroup of anceint germanic people who sacked rome? Technically these peopel arent goths..
Anyways I feel like people are only allowed minimal individuality.

wrote on Aug 30^th, 2005 at 12:27am:

My goodness! they tell the students in school..."oh you shoudl be an individual." And the same people who sya thsi do thinsg like cut their hair short or assimilate completely. So is it beign an individual within the realms of whats "normal?" You knwo alot of people try to be individuals and end up being just liek others. For isntance people relay get into gothic style, but don;t realize (im only talkign baout the peopel who wnat to be drasctially diff. but if thats your style and you like it because you think ist nice.. well ok)that theya re a copy of evry other "goth." Do they even know that a true goth is agroup of anceint germanic people who sacked rome? Technically these peopel arent goths.. Anyways I feel like people are only allowed minimal individuality.

*growls like a goth and waves battle axe above her head*   ;D

Lol! I like Visigoths! they brought an end to the true barabarians: the Roman soldiers. And the visigoths probably sported long locks as well.

wrote on Aug 30^th, 2005 at 1:31pm:

*growls like a goth and waves battle axe above her head*   ;D

Oh novusfemina - you really need to check out Maroula's signature *EVILLE ;D*...g

Nicely said N_R

Certain individuals always feel compelled to judge others - they are simply unable to accept other opinions or judging people by their outfits, hairdo, religious group,.........should I continue?

My 2 cents worth,
being in the hair industry for 10 years now, I think it has more to do with time, and the physical ability to maintain the hair. Most of my older clients 50 + have jobs that don't allow them to do all they need to do to maintain long hair and the styles that go with it, plus if it is very long , bra strap and below they find it a bother. they also are dealing with medical issues, that don't give them the range of motion, they used to have. For most cutting it short is just easier and less time consumming, and cost less to care for .. IE shampoos, conditioners .....

wrote on Aug 31^st, 2005 at 3:19pm:

For most cutting it short is just easier and less time consumming, and cost less to care for .. IE shampoos, conditioners .....

Obviously I'm not "most" people.  I find short hair to require more time for styling, I would have to wash it more often, and I end up spending MORE on products and services than I do my long hair.

wrote on Aug 31^st, 2005 at 7:47am:

Oh novusfemina - you really need to check out Maroula's signature *EVILLE ;D*...g

Ooooo Reeaaaaalllly?  *runs to go check*

I'm all for the Visigoths!  Been studying them in Western Civ.  It's the Vandals I'm worried about...

Eeeep!  *runs from Vandals*

wrote on Aug 31^st, 2005 at 3:19pm:

My 2 cents worth, being in the hair industry for 10 years now, I think it has more to do with time, and the physical ability to maintain the hair. Most of my older clients 50 + have jobs that don't allow them to do all they need to do to maintain long hair and the styles that go with it, plus if it is very long , bra strap and below they find it a bother. they also are dealing with medical issues, that don't give them the range of motion, they used to have. For most cutting it short is just easier and less time consumming, and cost less to care for .. IE shampoos, conditioners .....

Can't say I agree with you on that point.  I spent a whole lot more money and time in the salon, on colors, cuts, creams and treatments than I do now.  I mean.. I use Suave conditioner...  ::)

I can understand the range of motion thing, though.  But.. wouldn't it be harder on a woman to have to stand in front of a mirror and brush her hair as she blow dried it, then had to try and style it with curling irons, etc?  

wrote on Aug 31^st, 2005 at 3:19pm:

My 2 cents worth, being in the hair industry for 10 years now, I think it has more to do with time, and the physical ability to maintain the hair. Most of my older clients 50 + have jobs that don't allow them to do all they need to do to maintain long hair and the styles that go with it, plus if it is very long , bra strap and below they find it a bother. they also are dealing with medical issues, that don't give them the range of motion, they used to have. For most cutting it short is just easier and less time consumming, and cost less to care for .. IE shampoos, conditioners .....

Oops - another non agreement.  Part of why I have long hair and growing (grow grow grow chant) is that I never get a paid for haircut, color, anything.  It's also way easier to have long hair always look good (at least acceptably good) for me.

Even range of motion, which I discovered about two inches ago - once you learn how it's not hard at all.

My theory is that most older woman give up before it's long enough to make it a better choice...g

Quote:

My theory is that most older woman give up before it's long enough to make it a better choice...g

Good point Gabi.  Most of us can probably still remember (or are still going through) the "fun" stages of getting our hair beyond the awkward lengths.  Many give up and return to the routines of regular stylist vists.  Those of us that made it past those stages and fully enjoy the benefits of longer hair.

I am already enjoying spending less time in front of the mirror in the morning, and definately less money on all these different styling products I constantly NEEDED.

We live in the country country and you see more old and older woman around here with long hair than with short. Most of them wear it in a braid or some sort of bun.

I really agree-longer hair is easier, put it up and go.  The only part I had trouble with when I had long hair was getting into the routine of washing it at night instead of the morning when I had no time.  I am trying to start a new routine of washing at night so it will be habit when my hair is long again.

wrote on Aug 31^st, 2005 at 3:19pm:

My 2 cents worth, being in the hair industry for 10 years now, I think it has more to do with time, and the physical ability to maintain the hair. Most of my older clients 50 + have jobs that don't allow them to do all they need to do to maintain long hair and the styles that go with it, plus if it is very long , bra strap and below they find it a bother. they also are dealing with medical issues, that don't give them the range of motion, they used to have. For most cutting it short is just easier and less time consumming, and cost less to care for .. IE shampoos, conditioners .....

I had an a-line bob for about 12 years, and it was a breeze to take care of.  In fact, I never even had to comb it because it's straight, and combing would just make it flat.

When I decided to grow my hair, the hardest time I had was going from shoulder to BSL.  That was because I couldn't put my hair back and hair would fall in my way like if I bent over.  That length, even with layers, was just not a style I was happy with - I did not look unique, I looked like everyone trendy.

Now that my hair is waist length, I find I have MORE styling options (that don't require products) that do not take long to do.  For example, in the 80's, it took me a half an hour to style my hair.  Now, I can put up most buns or twist in under 2 minutes.  Also, if I chose to leave it down, it's long enough that it stays behind my shoulders and doesn't fall in my way.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is, for me - super short or super long works best.  

Cynde

I think my hair is more mangable long. I hadit short once when I was a child and had to blow dry/style it. Now  just comb throught and put some condiotioner on and make a braid or bun. This is quicker.
Also about the older folks. People are living artificlalliy long now. At one time 20 years was past middle aged.
There is good and bad in this. Yes it's nice to live along life, but wonce one gets past seventy its sually downh hill and teh quality of life isn't good(usually). We are living ina nation of unhelathy people...it's right in our faces. Every other commercial I see is a pill comercial. Oh youre afraid of flying? Take a pill!. Cna't sleep right? Take a pill! What happened to au naturel? There are very veyr powerdful natrural alterntaives. Well, to gte to the point, olde rpeople wya back when were stronger so they could dela with longer hair. Our great greta granmothers ar epeople to admire...many women these days talk about how far and storn woman are now...psshh. Poeple are so materialistc (what of intellect?) Anyways, to finish this rambling gobbly gook, I think that perhaps the reaosn why older folks cant handle the long hair style sis becaue they have lived artificailly long. And forgive em I knwo one two veyr elderly poeple for whom it was worth living that long (and they got there naturally!). But I feel sorry for so many people who take pills for everything. Its really scary and quite sad how we have a nation of sick people who think pills are these wonderful magical cure alls.  People have to eat better and take herbs and ple(unless you have a terrible  disease liek cancer or a serious heart problem) lay back on the medication and try soem naturla alterntaives. The drug companies don't want you to know about them. Money Money Money.I knwo alot of people know this, but no ones doing anythign to combat it :(.
Wow this went off from the hair subject...

That is such an excellent post Sara - I don't totally agree with everything but you really make good points.

I do take pills - wish I didn't have to but the alternative is much worse.  There is an artificiality to it though and living the best natural way is almost impossible for most of us.

Living in today's world is not an easy thing but it would be just as artificial to try to put ourselves back to a different existance, for most of us anyway, some people do actually go all out and do it.

For most of us it's all we can do to get it right in whatever circumstance we find ourselves in...g

I certainly sympathize with your thoughts, Sara.  :)

I think that medicalization has gone wrong in many ways- there are side effects in what generally is relieving of suffering. People are afraid of death, though they don't know whether it's a good or a bad thing. Symptoms of illnesses are often treated instead of their causes like bad nutrition and living in a stressful society.
  We live in an age, where everything new is worshipped and embraced just for novelty's sake, without thinking deeper, whether the new item will actually contribute in making us happier persons. We are told, that we should appreciate things that make our daily tasks easier and faster and few see that the extra time is spent in doing things that can be often described as wasting life.
Materia is worshipped, though the one thing that almost all thinkers through ages have agreed that happiness lies in a simple life.
   A philosopher as I am, it didn't take me too many years to become convinced that I should try to simplify my life. Guess what? Every little change I have made to simpler direction has made my life a little happier. Baking the bread I eat...my coworker asked, don't I have anything else to do. I replied to her what I realized right then: that I can't imagine doing anything better than actively making myself and my loved one happy.
Growing my hair long instead of short and fried. Embracing its natural beauty instead of always trying to "fix" its supposed problems. Stopping trying to follow fashion and adopting a simpler way of dressing myself. Now I'm at the point where I'm hoping to take some bigger steps like moving to countryside into a home that has less fanciness but more quality. I'm confident, that when unnecessary crap goes from my life, there will be room for more happiness and deep thought.

Thank you Gabi. You are right , not everyone wants to go all out. However, I do think that Galdariel si right. Small things like baking your own bread are very rewarding. Even making your own dinner from scratch. I'm not saying we hsould all go funky and stop showeing for 10 months, but to add some more simple thinsg to our life. We just made one good choice in this by deciding to grow our hair long and maintain it.

Again, all very good points (note to self, make bread  :D, I love homemade bread, well, at least tortillas).

But also,  I have to state again that I felt that wearing an almost buzz cut for ten years was also very simplifying and pleasurable - not to mention, you wouldn't believe how nice it feels  ;D...g

I agree with you, gabi. I too wore very short cut (shaved for the summer, letting grow a bit in winter) for years, and it was very easy and carefree. Going simple doesn't always mean going old-fashioned.
   One aspect I've enjoyed much so far is, that I've learned new skills. Taking each step on a road towards simpler life means learning new skills. And that, in turn has made me more self confident. On the other hand, this need to learn at every turn means also, that it's important to take small enough steps so that simplifying doesn't become a burden instead of a way to making life happier.
   

wrote on Sep 4^th, 2005 at 5:36am:

But also,  I have to state again that I felt that wearing an almost buzz cut for ten years was also very simplifying and pleasurable - not to mention, you wouldn't believe how nice it feels  ;D...g

I love to pet shaved heads.  Luckily I get lots of opportunities with hubby and friends (men and women).  

I'm a bald head petter too!!!  Hubbies head is best right after a shave!! ;D

LOL! When I see bald heads, I feel like shining them. O_O

Well, I have to agree to some point. (away from the hair)
Artificially prolonging life: this is a very delicate subject. I always ask my physician for a herbal alternative if I have to take medication. There are several meds my hubby is on. He has no choice in this matter. He has to take the meds the doctor prescribse. Or worse things will happen to him.
I am totally against keeping people alive thru machines. It is very important in our days to have an updated living will.

I am very glad and thankful that thanks to our modern medicine people don't have to die or suffer anymore - unlike maybe 50 or 100 years earlier.

And I am also all for remembering the simpler life. I make our bread (sometimes), have my herb garden, veggie garden and purchase - if  possible - milk and meat right at the farmer's house. We have 2 cherry trees, a plum tree, peach tree, and a pear tree.  I  like experimenting with all that fruit and  make my own gelee.

Back in the day, without a washmachine and a dryer, that's all what one did ALL day LONG - washing cloth. Nowadays one has machines for all that. Which frees up time for other things one can do. .....This is like that with a bunch of machines....at the end it equals STRESS. Taking steps back in the opposite direction is a good thing. Relax and remember how much satisfaction you can get out of "making" something yourself.
And yes, like Galadriel pointed out, it is a learning process. One step at a time. And stop whenever you have reached the point which is comfortable for you. (Gabi)   :)
Besides that,  I do miss my hubbies total short Army hair. He's letting it grow now ???? and I cannot get used to it.  8)

I think especially with some of the natural and not so natural disasters we've seen it is certainly prudent to think about at least being able to get things down to a minimum.

Certainly being dependant on medicines is a frightening thing.  Basic sanitation, food and water are needs no one can get away from.

It's a thin balance to take advantage of what can make life more pleasant without loosing the ability to par down to essentials ...g

[quote][/quote]It's a thin balance to take advantage of what can make life more pleasant without loosing the ability to par down to essentials....g


Agree 100%

There's so much philosophical debate going on, whether or not it is right to try to prolong life artificially. One problem is in defining the "artificial". Another is a deeper philosophical question about value of life vs. value of quality of life. I am among those who think that artificial prolonging of life can be a very bad thing. But, medical profession has for millenia tried to prolong life and now that they finally have effective means of doing, they go for it. Otherwise they would have to question the whole ethics that supports western medical practice.

What gabi said! It also seems, that our want of luxury and comfort is quite stable. If we live very simply, we get satisfaction from relatively simple things. But if we surround ourselves with many comforts and luxuries, it's more difficult to achieve satisfaction. We become spoiled.
This reasoning is another reason why I wish to go simpler- I may have long decades of life ahead of me, and I wish to preserve my ability to get delighted and enjoyment from small things of life.

I miss just one aspect in super short hair- it felt like my scalp was covered in velvet. ^^

There is so much debate on all the issues around the medical advances and prolongation of life in the medical community.  Be assured most of the medical community wrestles with those issues on a daily basis, and takes them very seriously.  I really don't want to get into my thoughts here, I like to leave work at work when I'm here.  
One thing to remember though is that, at least in the USA, the people with the final say on aggressive treatment (or any treatment) are the patient and/or their families, not the doctors or nurses.

This is a very stimulating conversation.  I haven't really formulated an opinion about prolonging life on a larger scale, but here is what goes through my mind when I think of health in my own little universe:

I have tons of health problems, so I appreciate a certain quality of life.  I know what it's like to live below that quality, and it really infringes on your life as a whole because discomfort or pain is all you feel all day long.  If I have these problems at 32, what more at 60?  

I don't want to live forever, but I don't want to live the last 20 years of my life dependant on other people, or bedridden either.  When I say dependant, I mean REALLY a burden.  Not just the normal taking-care-of-a-relative sort of thing.

I wish there was just an off-switch. Not that I'm not ready to leave any time soon, but when I do, I wish it wasn't against the law to terminate my own life.  

It is humane to put down animals but not humane to put down humans.?  I know religion factors into this.  But barring religion, if you are keeping a loved one alive, or the law is keeping them alive, they are not really thinking of the well-being of the ill person.  I'm not talking about people on machines that can't make their own decisions, but people who are sane and concious and feel it's their time to go.

Okay, I think my thought-streaming is done.  :)

Cynde

Well said, Khrome!   :D

My opinions fall along the same line - could it be that people who have experienced chronic pain/health issues maybe have a more realistic view of what a quality of life really is?  I have a 2 year period of my life that I NEVER want to relive or live like that again.  The only thing that kept me going during that time was the knowledge that there was a reasonable solution (surgery) that would improve my quality of life..... I would not want to live like that again.

Sorry to hear this Krome and BB

In Aboriginal culture, when its their time to go the go "walk about" and their spirits walk right out of their bodies.  I've also seen this in Indian culture with the Saddhus.  I suggest reading "Mutant Messages Down Under" (sorry, at the moment I don't remember the author but it is a woman).

We are not our bodies.  Maybe if we remembered that we'd know we could leave when the body was failing and move on.

I agree, that people who have not had their quality of life truly diminished have no honest experience and only have a thought or dogma.

Thought I'd throw in a bit of opinion here..  ;)

I have to take hormones because it seems my err..  "female parts" like to work overtime.  I'm grateful for technology and for medical advances, because I intially found out about my problem because it had caused a medical emergency.  And I wasn't ready to die at 21.  

But where does that quality over quantity of life come into play?  

Maybe that's a personal question, rather than something to answer en masse.  Personally, I'd like to stay here as long as I have breath in my body!  I'm not afraid of death, I'd just like to enjoy my time here on Earth.  Yet, at the same time, I'd rather not see people suffer, and continue to hurt here in this life if they don't want to...

This subject is surely getting tough and deep. Emotions and attitudes can fly high.  

It is a touchy one and I guess we must be careful.

It's also an important one to each and every one of us.

The bottom line always comes back to the total of the individuals wishes (or it should IMO).  The trick is to be wise enough to find a way to get those wishes carried out if one is no longer able to make them for oneself.

Personally, I would rather err on the side of checking out too soon than too late.

The comparisons the our animal friends always comes up and I'm not sure it's totally a good match.  We, as humans have many more ways to enjoy our life through the assistances we've been talking about.  We can also communicate our desires and hopefully have them carried out.

I love life but I have seen the sides that would make me want to stop...it's just one of those things that you kinda have to be there to get the full scope ...g

This is becoming quite a conversation.  Since it is Friday and I don't have to go back into the thick of things at the hospital for a couple of days, I feel a little more able to cope with putting my thoughts down here.
As has already been noted, one's world-view, or basic spiritual belief system is really the driving force behind each of our opinions on this.  So to lay it out, I'm starting from a Bible-based Christianity point of view.  To me that means quality of life is a side issue because there are redeeming/spiritual growths that occur in direct connection to suffering whether emotional or physical.  These can be for the person afflicted and/or for those around them, often for everyone involved.

I'm thinking specifically of a family in our church.  Their beautiful, lovely, vibrant daughter had a brain cancer at the age of 7.  After all the treatment to "cure" the cancer she was mentally retarded and as time went on she eventually became more and more debilitated.  She died in her early 20's, after a broken hip and several strokes - more like an 80 year old.  What was her quality of life?  Not good. What was it like for her family? Extremely difficult, but they wouldn't have given that up for anything.  She influenced so many people and encouraged so many people.  Her funeral was overflowing with people she had touched and whose lives she had enriched.  

This does not mean I want or take any pleasure in people suffering.  Not by any stretch.  It does mean I look beyond the pain for the bigger picture that God has.  Even if I can't see the bigger picture (which is the norm here on Earth) I remember that beautiful tapestries are made of bright threads and golden highlights, but they only shine when offset by dark ones.  And I hope my life is seen as a beautiful tapestry to those around me.

See, I shouldn't write about these philosophical discussions on a Friday evening after work, don't know when and how to  :-X!

PreciousLocks, you stated your thoughts very well.  Thank you for sharing them.

Oh how deep this topic has become. All I can say tonight  is that I agree with a little bit of what everyone has said. I will come up with a better response another day, but I'm busy. :)

You know, my dad has to really on different types of pills to live, in certain cases its a good thing, but personally, I woulnd't liek to ahve to relly on the pill as my savior.It's also dangerous when these medicines intereact with others. Also I knwo someone said they had somethign to do with teh medicine industry (sorry I don't remember too well). Of course t many some doctors support medictaion to help humanity (but I feel it is the big corporations that are evil in waya nd greedy and don't care if we die as logn as they gte our money). But I know that if I had family and loved ones I would have to do it for them :). So I see where some people are coming from. But always I will look for a natural alterntive .

Ok, so here goes how I think about this. I hope that nobody takes offense of my dealing with this as an ethical question that can be answered. I mean no disrespect to differing opinions  and know that I might be wrong, but in philosophy moral questions aren't treated with "everyone is right in a way" kind of way. It is polite, but it's the job of a philosopher to try to find the best possible answer to a moral question. So, this is what I would answer if someone asked me what is right in this matter.

Eventually, I suppose that this is a question that each of us must solve for ourselves- and that is why I support right to choose. We all have different beliefs concerning relevant things like possible afterlife, value of life in itself and importance of life free of suffering. In my opinion, the responsibility of choice belongs to the individual. Both forcing one to live or die take that responsibility away from the person whose life it is and give it to others. I think that's wrong because that denies the person's right to make moral decisions for herself- it takes away her autonomy and puts her to the same category with children, senile people and animals who aren't autonomous moral agents.
   In my opinion, moral decisions aren't always actions but they are choices that mind makes. For example, if someone really wants to commit suicide, she has in fact already chosen that and the lack of means to act according to her choice won't change her moral status the least bit. Lacking the means is against her moral choice- and therefore she can't be given credit for not taking her own life. She hasn't chosen her omission freely.
    I think we all can agree, that only choices made out of free will have moral significance. Otherwise, it's "morality of gunpoint"- the situation is similar to if you are forced to do something points a gun at you and threatens to shoot if you don't obey. In such a situation, you are not to blame even if you do something contrary to your everyday moral. While heroical behavior in extreme situations is to be praiseworthy, it can't be an expected of everyone.
      We can't prevent others from making moral choices, and therefore we shouldn't take them away all means of doing according to their beliefs. In my eyes, a person should not be forced to die or to live- she should be free to choose and to bear the consequences of her choice, whatever they may be.

Well said!  I really admire your ability to think deeply and express your thoughts clearly in the English language!  Brava!!

Edited to erase extra spaces put in by Jupiter (the kitten) stepping on the enter key!

Like Sakina, I am in awe of your ability to express yourself in the English language Galadriel.

I've only had one intro to philosophy course, many years ago, so I can't claim any expertise here.  My comments come from my years of living and observations of life - and death - around me.

Philosophy is a good way to think through moral questions.  I find when the issue comes upon me face-to-face (that is in the form of myself or another person struggling with that issue in their own life), the answers of philosophy seem to be made in a vacuum. i.e. The choice to live or die does not affect just the person making that choice, it also affects that person's family and friends for the rest of their lives; and there are people who would choose at one point to end their lives, but at another time would not consider that to be a valid decision.  


Quote:

if someone really wants to commit suicide, she has in fact already chosen that and the lack of means to act according to her choice won't change her moral status the least bit

 That's true.  She has the ability to change that moral decision also.  How do you know when your choice is the "right" one?

Just hoping to stimulate more debate on the subject....

PreciousLocks:
  When trying to solve extremely complex problems like moral problems, simplifications must be made when possible. It is simply impossible to think eg. what is the "sphere of consequences" for any action- chaos theory has proven that well. That is why philosophers are often wary of evaluating things based on their consequences. Especially when there are other good ways to do the job.  ;) Consequences of an act are part of what makes the act good or bad -we expect that good acts result in desirable states of affairs at least for most of the time- but that's not the whole story (eg. on the other hand most people don't think that murder is right and good even if the victim was a "bad person").

Philosophers don't "calculate" answers to moral questions (as is commonly believed): we don't take facts of the situation, then take a theory that appeals to us and use it too determine what would be the right decision according to that theory. Moral questions are far more complex than that, and at the moment, there isn't a "supertheory" that could be used as a "moral computer". There are theories, and they are used as tools in the sense that they are used as aids to thinking, together with logic and with imagination of individual thinker.

How do I know if my moral decision is the right one? Well, that's the problem, isn't it?! :) There is no great book where the "absolutely right" answers are available and where we could go to check the right answer. (Granted, there are plenty of books who claim to be just that- unfortunately all of them base their claims of reliability on arguing in circle and that's why one who really wants truth and nothing but the truth, can't take their word for being The Book). Also, it seems that sometimes morally admirable choices result in very bad consequences from point of view of the individual (just think of all the martyrs).
  My homespun answer that has more than a sprinkling of virtue ethics in it is, that the right moral choice is the one that makes you a better (and consequently also happier) person compared to what you were prior to making that choice. While we may disagree to some extent on what traits constitute an excellent "ideal" person, I think that we would also agree in many places, and from there we can also try to agree on what kind of action is a kind or generous act in a given situation. From which it follows, that after we have made a moral choice, we can evaluate it and think, whether it was a choice that good person would have made or not.

Gabi, I think you've hit exactly to the point I tried to make when you say that people make mistakes. The question I'm asking is essentially, who should (and who can) be the one to bear consequences of those mistakes?

Iiiinteresting discussion! :)

What I learned from philosophy is that you can always debate a subject so that "wrong" is "right" and "right" is "wrong".  So philosophy won't tell you whether an issue is one way or another.    

Philosophy can tell you how to bring in other factors to support your side.  Religious beliefs, laws, science, selflessness, selfishness, personal beliefs.  And since we are all unique, thinking individuals, it's unlikely we will all come to the same conclusion.  

Knowing this makes it easier to accept another person's point of view.  That is why I respect all of your beliefs, even if they are different from my own.  Every one of you have expressed your beliefs so well, and I feel much more enlightened to know them.  

It is true, if a person chooses to live or die effects more then themselves.   But the opposite is true too.  A person dies, family and friends suffer.  A person lives, the person suffers but family and friends are happy.  Should life be voted on by the majority?  Or does it belong to the individual?  Both sides should, of course, discuss it.  But if you make a person stay because you  fear the loss and pain, then you are putting the ill person in a very difficult decision.  Of course they are not going to want to upset you.  Not only will they be sick, they feel guilty for their thoughts.  That's not a nice way to spend, what might be, the last days of your life.

Cynde

Oh I love philosophy. I remember the course that I took was very interesting (but I had to lug a three thousand page book with me for every class..). You're right, through it, i you can find facts to support your ideas. In fact it goes hand in hand with Logic or Critical Thnking (which I'm studying now). However, the only problen with the class was that people would present ideas and someone woudl disagree right away. As a result the speaker is unable to finish what they were trying to say (this happened to me). However this was only one class.  I'm sure others have had more positive experiences in regards to this.

No...the idea of using philosophical method is not essentially to turn things upside down and to confuse people but to find the truth in a matter (any matter) that cannot be solved by scientific method. Often such questions that are important, tend to be very complex ones, and we have been forced to form some preliminary opinion about them. So, when we begin a methodical philosophic examination, we at first usually end up refuting those beliefs. But it's just the beginning: to put it very simply, we continue to form hypotheses and try to find counterarguments to them as long as is necessary- as long as we finally come up with something that cannot be refuted or turned upside down with our best efforts. This process, however, is usually very long (we're often talking about centuries if not of millenia) so for those who have taken just a few classes it may seem as if philosophy is just endless debating without no real point. But the point is there- the way philosophical thought progresses is just slower and very different from what we have come to expect based on our experiences on progress of empirical sciences. Philosophers always seek answers to questions- the aim is to tell eg. if something is right or wrong. The trouble is, that in great many questions the conclusion hasn't been reached yet. And, that in those questions where a conclusion has been reached, the impact of it has been so huge, that it's become a way of life- something that we don't even think that could be otherwise.

Than in a way, if one is a philosopher he or she commits to a life long search for the truth. Sometimes they may not find the answer and the truth may only be the truth in their eyes only. In the end isn't that what really counts? Our own truth?

My dance teacher must be in her 60s by now, but she is younger at heart than most of the people at my high school.  She also has very beautiful and thick salt and pepper hair.  I love it and wish she wore it down more-- she leaves it in a bun for dancing.  She also wears intricate drop earings when she dances, and isn't afraid to laugh at herself when they get in her face.  She is one of the wisest and kindest people I know.  She has to be-- she teaches kids as young as three (I was three when I started taking classes with her) to dance.  I wish the world had more people like her-- it would be a far more cheerful place.

I think this is a tough question to answer. I feel it depends on your religious beliefs, where you live, your own personal beliefs, societal pressures and many other factors. In my opinion, if women want to wear their hair short they should do so because that is who they are and not because they feel pressured into doing so or because it is easier and that is what is expected. The same goes for women with longer lengths.

When it comes to men, my feelings are similar. I love a man who can wear their hair long and be proud of who they are. I also love short hair. I love the feel of a buzz cut as well as a longer style where I can run my hands through it.

When it comes to age and women, I feel that it is solely up to the individual. I have heard and read that women of a certain age should not wear their hair long, but why? What about having long hair is bad. Maybe people say these things because of their own insecurities. Another reason I feel is that the media and others want to control where people’s money end up. If women and men are spending the money at salons keep their hair in a current trend then the media and all the others (magazines and shows) win so to speak, Not that I am against salons, but if you only do what shows and other media sources tell you then what is the point of individualism?

Everyone has to and has the choice in this country to decide what is best for them. Personally, I prefer longer hair. I love the feel of it and I love having the option to wear it down, up, in between, or to fake a short style. I have had chin-length hair in the past and I felt bored with the fact that I could only do so much with it and it always looked the same. I am in the same boat now, my hair is about shoulder length maybe a little longer, and although I can still do some things with it, I feel stuck that I cannot do elaborate updos that you can do with BSL or longer lengths of hair.

Where I attend college, most of the students, men and women, wear their hair long, at least BSL and longer. Everyone should be true to whom he/she is and if short hairstyles are your thing, rock on, if longer lengths are your treat then enjoy the journey I am sure it will be a great one.