Eoulapa was browsing Instagram when he came across the news, that two boys had rebelled against school hair restrictions and were suing their schools. Seeking inspiration, he delved into the comment section. Not to his surprise, there were scant additional arguments in favour of easing the restrictions that he had not mentioned. Nonetheless, longing to build more comprehensive rebuttals, he opted to debunk some contrary arguments instead.
Here are some of them for your reference:
Here are some of them for your reference:
1. User 1: "Are they demented leftists???"
2. User 1: "Maybe he [one of the concerned students] is an attacking helicopter. That's what you get from wokeism."
3. User 1: "I understand that they demand an easing, but the hair restrictions were initially stipulated so students respect the circumstances and their role. It's as if walking into a restaurant with dishevelled hair and everything."
4. User 2: "Various rules in primary and secondary schools are to nurture adherence and discipline. They don't ban hair dyeing in universities anyway."
Eoulapa sent the first two comments to Aufisü. While awaiting a response, he started: "Hi, just wanna know what you think. Though I've been condemning overgeneralisation and polarisation, I still want to expand on those topics and the 'discipline' argument. Look at these two comments. I know that one of those boys has connections with the local pride community, but that does not render the argument LGBTQ-related. Pemmaìn has voiced against the rule, yet he isn't a member of the LGBTQ community. If people like User 1 insist on their straw man approach, we'll never get anything done in society."
He then sent the third comment and said: "And here is another typical 'respect the circumstances and respect the role of a student' argument. This person also put forth an example, and while I'll give them credit, it is totally irrelevant - it is with the premise that long hair is dishevelled hair, which evidently is not true. I've mentioned how celebrities of different fields have been espoused despite their long hair or, even worse for the objectors, been espoused because of their hair. If their hair is disorderly, they should have been castigated and despised, because they do not respect the circumstances or their roles somehow - teenage Messi's hair was a disgrace to the pitch, Keanu Reeves should not be at any award ceremony, and Eve doesn't deserve to be a renowned singer."
He sent a 🤷♂️ emoji before continuing: "Absolute nonsense. One cannot fathom why long hair in boys is a desecration at school, given that broader society condones it. The implication that long hair represents dishevelment is an insidious one. Moving on, we have another classic - the 'discipline' argument." Then, he saw Aufisü typing and waited for his response.
After a while, the message came: "Too inimical, too arbitrary, too unpleasant. That sums up the argument. Far too many rules have been imposed bearing the name of 'discipline', but like you, I question how effectively regulating hair length nurtures discipline. There are predominantly two types of male students: those who prefer short hair and regularly get it trimmed, and those who prefer longer hair and rarely get a cut. Even if long hair restrictions cultivate discipline, they do so on a limited scale, not to mention they might merely be prohibitive. On top of that, you and I both know the importance of individuality. We both do not oppose school uniforms for their more palpable effects, but we assail these hair restrictions, all because we believe that personal sacrifice with uniforms already suffice, and there thus is no necessity to further constrict personal expression, while inducing more hindrances to both students and teachers."
Eoulapa: "Exactly. Oh by the way, I will be submitting to our school newsletter about long hair restrictions. We can draft the plan tomorrow. For now, I just want to do some push-ups before bed."
Aufisü: "Alright then."
~Written 16/11/23 22:22 at home.