Introduction
Earlier today, I was ready to step into the school for another regular day. To my surprise, I was brought to the side by the discipline master, who claimed that my hair was "too long" and "crossed my eyebrows" (which meant death for my hair). I was not happy, to say the least. In fact, I was secretly outraged, and I feel ashamed that I did not object to it immediately. Nonetheless, I am here to express my discontent with these "long hair restrictions", which I deem total gibberish with no actual value at all. My hair does not even touch upon the threshold of being "long" - it merely touches my nose when pulled! My demand has always been to ease restrictions, to an extent where those with hair like mine are accepted, and I will expound on why I am right.
This article shall comprise 7 rebuttals of conventional arguments against the easing of "long hair restrictions" (the easing) and 3 affirmative arguments. I shall delve into how delinquency, gender recognition, rebelliousness, comparison, inexorable future advocacies, an is-ought argument, and an appeal to traditions are not satisfactory counterclaims against the easing. Afterwards, 3 benefits to the student from the easing will be explored.
Rebuttals
1 - "Long hair in boys implies delinquency."
A common reason against the easing is how it "implies delinquency". By delinquency, objectors mean that outsiders will perceive students as contumacious teenagers like gangsters, truant players, or decadent individuals, based solely on their long hair. They believe that long hair in boys represents unsanitariness. This is overgeneralisation from mass media entertainment and real-life experience. Indeed, unhygienic men might leave their beards and hair untrimmed, but how can one deny that girls, despite their often innate long hair, still manage to maintain it?
Celebrities like the late Michael Jackson, the prodigious Japanese singer Eve, and young Lionel Messi had/have hair equivalent to or longer than mine. Yet, instead of being seen as delinquents that corrupt teenagers, they are worshipped as ingenious and intelligent people. Those with medium or long hair can be epitomes of talent and even be recognised for their hair. For instance, renowned American actor Johnny Depp is known for his stern yet humorous mien, and the long hair down to his shoulders is the crux for some. Moreover, this also attests to the subjective judgement of "delinquency", and it would be regrettable for those preferring long hair to not be attended to.
2 - "Long hair obstructs teenagers' ability to 'find themselves'."
I by no means seek to involve the contentious subjects of gender identity or LGBTQ. Still, slightly long hair does not convert one into a girl, something objectors of the easing clearly despise - they fear that students cannot "act like their own gender". It is absolutely predictable if Johnny Depp identifies as a woman because of his long hair, as it limpidly is a possibility, according to those objectors! Speaking of identifying as a woman, why have the teenage gangsters on the street, something objectors also lament, not identify as a woman as well? The objectors gravitate towards extreme cases favourable to them, and the sheer inconsistency in the objectors' narrative is already a fatal error.
Not only that, if a school aims to nurture students' self-care ability, letting them practise self-reliance, it would be reasonable to grant students ways to manage their appearance. And some even claim that male students who prefer long hair have "lost themselves" - ludicrous and inconsiderate. If they prefer long hair and are forced to trim their hair, they have truly lost themselves! Style is not innate the the two sexes - it is not always "male - short hair; female - long hair", unless it can be explained how adherence to dichotomies like these are most preferable.
I am not taking the straw man approach - it is evident that I loathe it - I am merely contradicting the rationale behind one of their most common claims. Any discussion is, of course, welcome.
3 - "Exoticness brings harm."
The sheer abundance of this claim makes me nauseous. This is as if saying "I set a trap for you, and you fell into it. It's your fault!". If long hair was not satanised as a sin in the first place, it would not be "exotic". In addition, unfortunate for the objectors, movements of the easing have taken root and are gaining support. One a few months ago upheaved society, and countless supportive comments were left under advocacy posts. Should the objectors insist that long hair implies exoticness, it is a blatant disregard for students' opinions and directly distresses those involved, and I can cognise the distress because I have been an advocate for students' rights for more than a year. From my observations, these accusations of "exoticness" are often by-products of social adherence and direct consequences of over-obedience - I mean, why would anyone so persistently cling to disputable stances and not initiate open discourse?
4 - "Different hairstyles incite comparison."
I am delighted to be addressing this assertion after a series of debates with my friend. It is testament to the power of open discourse. Regardless, let us get into the rebuttal.
As aforementioned, a previous attempt to loosen the concerned regulations had widespread support from students. Therefore, one can pose the question of whether pernicious comparisons will truly result. Currently, if a student gets a bad trim, his peers might banter with them for a day, but this is in no way a comparison and is often innocuous. Besides, as said, banter over hairstyles usually lasts no longer than days, for hair grows. Lingering banter rarely - presumably almost never - exists. It is hence safe to assume that "harmful comparison", if possible anyway, will dissipate and not stick around.
To exemplify, if a male student with long hair receives comments, he may either trim it as he prefers his hair short, or he may keep it as he prefers it long. The flexibility stems from the changeability of long hair - you can get any cut you want. If he dislikes long hair and gets lampooned for it, he may change it swiftly, negating the possibility of continual "comparison"; if he likes long hair and gets derided for it, it is still unlikely for the already unlikely "comparison" to remain. Everything notwithstanding, how often do students get ridiculed because of their naturally grown long hair anyway?
5 - "Advocacy for the easing is similar to the reckless upholding of LGBTQ values."
Certain individuals find the "100-odd pronouns" of the LGBTQ community perturbing. I have argued in an article that this is an overgeneralisation, as not the entire community espouses these "pronouns". Even so, I have supplementary points to add.
The source of the "reckless upholding" is due to identity politics, which political scientist Francis Fukuyama lectured me about in his book Identity. Before the upsurge in internet communication, those who felt neglected and underprivileged could not resonate with popular culture. But the rise of social media saw a rapid soar in identity politics, for they can now unite and express themselves valiantly.
However, those demanding the easing proactively have been somewhat accepted by students, and they remain a minority, as opposed to the scale of LGBTQ advocates, who have contributed to political polarisation. Consequently, "advocacy for the easing is similar to the reckless upholding of LGBTQ values" is not a valid concern.
6 - "Incremental changes like this have no need."
The preposterousness of this is unfathomable. I believe incremental details in life contribute significantly to our quality of life. Lest you miss the bus by a minute, be ignored by your security guard and ruminate whether you did something wrong, or be busted because of your hair!
7 - "We must prioritise conventions because culture says so."
An appeal to tradition is often leveraged when opposing novelty or change. Again, it puzzles me how attached one can be to one's culture that it is untenably defended, sometimes even without reason. Traditions, if preserved, must be preserved with a rationale; if jettisoned, they must also be jettisoned with a rationale. An appeal to tradition takes root in attachment and nostalgia, which are potent emotions that sway our judgement. We must beware of these subtle fallacies in preservation and jettison alike.
Why the easing?
1 - Students gain self-management skills
The easing would necessitate students' management of their own hair. By granting students more control over their personal style, they can learn to govern themselves before entering society, where self-management would be crucial in entrepreneurship and work.
Apart from future fruits, immediate rewards can also be reaped. The obligation to control one's own body helps students sustain their physical health by preventing substance abuse, planning a good diet, and sleeping regularly, and these all stem from the simple act of hair management. If you manage your hair, you learn to control your other body parts.
2 - Self-esteem and recognition
Despite not pertaining to gender identity, one's perception of oneself when matched with one's physical self, can bolster one's self-esteem and recognition of oneself. This owes to the sense of control over one's own body. Certain members of the LGBTQ community opt for fierce advocacy due to hatred and resentment from perceived "illiberality" and neglect, which results in a loss of dignity and recognition. As explained, if students can recognise themselves and act of their own accord, hatred will not foment.
Uniformity is associated with both unity and tyranny. While individuality is sacrificed in both, the difference is whether it is forgone willingly or not. The former promotes cooperation by first enabling self-management (people have to manage themselves and educate themselves, so they understand the necessity of uniformity), while the latter stifles liberty and the sense of oneself by force. Conspicuously, the former outweighs the latter on the psychological front.
3 - Students are exposed to diverse personalities and styles
As society gets increasingly diverse, students should be exposed to such an environment as early as possible, so as to gear them for the future. Uniformity, on the other hand, is diminishing in importance. Should students discover themselves in such a diverse society, they can not only acquire the rewards of (2), but feelings of non-acceptance and aversion to idiosyncrasy can also be remediated.
Where to start
To reiterate, restrictions with long hair in boys should be eased to a considerable extent, such as permitting hair that crosses the eyebrows and amending such regulations. Nevertheless, above all, no one will ever be satisfied without compromise and concrete results. Resulting from so, trial and error like implementing eased restrictions temporarily for inspection and testing should be carried out.
