No. To the OP: that is, the original poster.
Sorry for the confusion.
Male hair loss is basically a hormonal disorder. Men with thinning hair cut it short because they don’t like the way they look with long hair.
Yeah. mine is shorter than it was when I was in college, despite not having been cut much in between. It gets to a little below my shoulder. My sister’s hair is even shorter, and uncut she can’t get it to her shoulders except in bits and pieces. She keeps it short because it doesn’t look good much longer.
I have a male friend (Chinese) who has gorgeous hair down to his bum. Every so often he cuts a foot or two off, and then let’s it grow until it annoys him. His is thick and rich all the way down. All his female friends like to play with it. Yes, I’ve braided it. 
I do think that on average women have finer hair and men coarser hair, but I think the length genes are independent of sex. And there’s a big overlap in hair texture between men and women.
You are, of course, not wrong, even if you might be over-generalising. However, it might be worth pointing out that many of those arriving European men would also have worn their hair long. It’s always seemed to me that the western idea of boys have short hair/girls have long hair is purely a (mostly) 20th Century phenomenon.
OB
That’s not true, either - in Ancient Rome soldiers cut their hair short and were clean shaven so opponents couldn’t grab their hair or beards during hand-to-hand combat, which was based on some pragmatic considerations. In Ancient Egypt shaving was popular for both genders, as were wigs, but that was largely for hygienic reasons.
Hair is a complicated thing throughout history and culture.
As I understand, the current style of fairly short hair for men (except during the 60’s and 70’s) was a byproduct of the trenches of WWI. The most effective form of lice control was fairly short hair, so much of the young male generation (the ones who survived) were used to wearing short hair after the war and it signified they had served in the army. It became a common style since then. Before that, longer hair was common for men.
Uh, no. You can tell that to my alopecia-ridden ass, lol.
Just because it’s more socially acceptable for women to have long hair then men (although I’ve seen plenty of guys with long hair and even dated one) doesn’t have anything to do with genes. Plenty of men can grow out their hair should they choose to. Obviously not all, but then again, not all women can grow real long, healthy hair, either. Mine is thinning and when growing it out means weighing it down and having it splinter off into nothing, no matter the shampoo I use.
Some women have hair that is more course, more thick, more frizzy or thinner than others. That does come down to genes. But it isn’t a men vs women issue. Thor *absolutely *has more amazing hair than I do.
Then why did you even bring up genes if you think men can grow hair the way women can?
As another data point, I was surprised to learn that in George Washington’s time long hair on men was considered a military style (the opposite of the buzzed hairstyle of today). The reason, though, is because it offered the same practical effect - the hair would be pulled back into a tight bun, thereby keeping it tight and out of the way during the campaign.
I wonder if we can find any studies about the use of and costs of conditioner broken down by sex. I would wager that not only do women use conditioner more they spend more on it than the men who do as well.
I think the conclusion here is that no, hair genes do not differ for men and women but are the same. So the only difference is just cultural and personal maintenance preferences. I guess women just treat their hair to make it long, silky, or whatnot and it only appears that they have better hair genes meant for length. I did notice that most men that have long hair tend to have it wavy, as oppose to long, straight and silky treated.