While there are obviously any number of individual exceptions, it seems pretty apparent that in the vast majority of cultures - both current and historical - women tend to have as long or longer hair on average than men. (I’m not aware of any at all in which the reverse is/was true, though there may well be/have been.) This would suggest that it’s something inherent rather than specific to any one culture. Question is why this is so.
My suggestion is that long hair is more attractive and short hair is more practical. And that the gender differences simply reflect a natural tendency to weigh attractiveness more heavily relative to practicality in the case of women, and practicality more heavily relative to attractiveness in the case of men.
My own suggestion (though still pretty much a WAG) is that long, thick hair is considered feminine because of how common it is for healthy, virile men to lose some or all of their hair.
The responses on this board are amazingly predictable. Later on in this thread someone will accuse the OP of “confirmation bias”, then someone will ask for a precise definition of man/woman, then someone will offer up an anecdote that all of the women they know have incredibly short hair and/or all of the men they know have very long hair, etc., etc.
Yes but why is long hair more attractive? Are ideas of attractiveness societally and culturally reinforced? Which came first, attractiveness or long hair?
Fine. Do you have a cite that it is “…pretty apparent that in the vast majority of cultures - both current and historical - women tend to have as long or longer hair on average than men.”?
Wiki seems to suggest that the idea of short hair as masculine and short hair as feminine is very much a Western thing, and that the further you get from post-Greek/Roman Western culture, the more variation you see.
I think the OP’s just-so proposal would need to explain why Sikh, Native American, Chinese, Viking, and Goth men all put attractiveness ahead of practicality, unlike the “default” man.
In history, hair length and styles among men has constantly fluctuated. By no means has short hair always been the norm among men. If you look at paintings from Medieval times, you see lots of men with long hair. In the Renaissance, there were periods of long hair (the 1400s), periods of short hair (the 1500s), and then back to long hair (the 1600s, especially the French.) The long hair on men eventually got very fluffy and curly and elaborately styled, like Charles II of England and Louis XIV of France. Actually, I think at that point, they might have actually been wigs. Then in the 1700s the wigs became shorter and styled in a more formal way, and also powdered or made of white hair, as in the days of the American Revolution. Underneath, the hair may have been shaved, but at least superficially, most of the Founding Fathers can be described as “long-haired”. Then if you look at pictures from the Civil War you’ll see a wide variety of hair length, sometimes short, sometimes long…to say nothing of the facial hair. Seems like after the Civil War, all the way until the present day, the convention has been for men to keep their hair short. Obviously there have been exceptions in the 20th century, like countercultural types of various stripes, but if you look at pictures of formal, professional people, it’s been short. (And this is only Western culture I’m talking about here. Undoubtedly, other cultures have historical variations in hairstyles that are equally diverse.)
Listen, if the OP can’t establish the premise, he’s begging the question. There’s nothing wrong with asking that the premise be established before evaluating the theory for why. And I very much doubt F-P would mind such a critique, being the rational creature that he is.
I don’t know the answer because I’m not familiar with hair culture, on the aggregate, but as some posts here indicate, it’s not that simple.
Two of the first things that come to mind to me are the Polish plait (which makes dreadlocks seem hygenic) and Absalom, who apparently had pretty long hair, given that it became tangled in a tree.
That’s true to an extent - though I don’t think it’s “very much” a Western thing, e.g. it seems to also be the case in Africa.
I had read the Wiki article before writing the OP, which is why I framed it the way I did. There are some cultures where short hair is masculine and long hair is feminine, and some cultures which don’t differentiate, but there are few if any which have the reverse. This suggests a bias in one direction, which is what I was purporting to explain.
I’ve left some things for other people to explain.
I reject the notion that an explanation which explains a broader pattern is also required to account for every exception. There are exceptions to everything. There are many times where cultural influences can overcome a natural inclination. Nonetheless, if you see a clear pattern it’s strongly suggestive that an underlying reason exists, even if it doesn’t manifest itself in every instance.
In general, attractiveness (to the extent that it’s inherent versus local custom) tends to be associated with factors which are associated with survival and reproductive success. People are drawn to attractiveness over calculated thoughts of survival and reproductive success (especially since they may not consciously appreciate them), so people who are naturally attracted to such traits have an advantage. In this particular instance, Wiki says:
I don’t mind such a critique. However, I’m also not much interested in establishing the premise. It seems to me from what I’ve seen over the years about different cultures and eras that it’s true (in the limited manner that I’ve expressed it), and what interests me is why this might be so, to the extent that you accept the premise.
If anyone doesn’t accept the premise that’s fine too and from that person’s perspective the OP is pretty much moot, though that’s not a discussion I’m personally looking have at this time (unless someone brings actual evidence that the premise is wrong). However, there may be other people who do agree with the premise and are interesting in discussing what the basis for it might be.
I’m pretty sure that, on average, womens’ hair actually grows longer naturally than mens’ hair. And yes, people always point out cultures where men wore long hair or where women wore short hair, but the examples of long hair on men are never as long as what’s considered long hair on women, and the examples of short hair on women are never as short as what’s considered short on men.
But these aren’t little exceptions: we are talking about whole continents. I think it’s confirmation bias creating the trend you see.
But even if I pretend it exists, I don’t buy your explanation. Long hair isn’t automatically more difficult or efficient than short: you just put it up. There are a million ways to braid it/wrap it/pin it and forget it. It’s short hair that swings into your eyes, gets caught in the wind, has to be cut regularly–short hair is more work and at least as much expense. And mid-length hair is the worst of all worlds–and if I associate any length explicitly with men throughout history, it’s ear-lobe-to-shoulder range hair. That’s a range that sucks.
Now, I do think there’s a general tendency to gender hair in one way or the other. But the direction of that tendency seems to be much more local than some sort of deep-seated inherent attractiveness of long hair.
I agree. This is one thing about this board that irks me–a short bit of thought will make one realize that one only has to think of the Greeks and Romans for one (or two) cite(s). Examples are many throughout history, although I agree with the poster who said it may be primarily a Western attribute. I see in my mind’s eye many portraits of Chinese and Japanese men with long hair.
Ultimately, though, I think it’s just one of those things that have stuck as a cultural idea. Why that might’ve stuck, I have no idea.
All that proves is it is true of Greeks and Romans. I haven’t read Surreal’s link but THAT would be a cite about a widespread historical, cultural trend in hair length. I’m not attached to any particular outcome, but if we’re gonna theorize about why things are the way they are, I’d rather first establish that they are in fact, that way.
