Regarding the OP, Beeblebrox’s explanation for short hair = masculine makes the most sense to me, especially since other European cultures have favored longer hair on men. Look at the culture from 18th century England, and the predominance of wigs. This provides more justification supporting WordMan. The economically advantaged in Europe during the middle ages like to sport all the affectations we commonly apply to women - long hair (or wigs), high heels, big fluffy cuffs on their shirt sleeves, makeup, etc. These are all signs the person does not have to do “real work”, and thus is able to have manicured nails that won’t be broken or chipped, clothing that gets in the way, and hair requiring time and effort to maintain.
I saw a special on TLC that showed the innards of a tomb that belonged to two men, supposedly gay lovers, that owned and operated a beauty salon, also depicted by the paintings and tools(combs and hairdryers) that were found in the tomb. They assumed that they were gay lovers because they chose to be buried together(usually a symbol of marriage). You see, some things(like gay men and beauty salons) never change.
Wordman, hair length is not a product of sexual selection. This is because it can not be. People – men and women alike – have to grow their hair out in order to wear it long, or cut it regularly to wear it short. Sexual selection only works as an evolutionary force if it acts upon genetically determined traits, like breast size or deep voices.
The same is true for weird heads and lotus feet. Every female infant in China had to be mutilated every generation in order to achieve the desired outcome – precisely because people can not graft cultural sexual attractors into the human genome at will.
Forgive me if this is not what you intended to say, of course.
(WRT Icons: ignore this if going off topic is overwhelmingly irritating to you. My main point was not the actual hair length of Christ, but that Icons are just about as old as the Church. Dating them to a thousand years ago seems to suggest that they were an invention of the medieval Roman Church, which is not correct. When people blab in my main areas of study (Church history, Anthropology/human evolution, and sundry related and unrelated topics), I have a hard time holding my tongue. I may not always be right, but I usually only contradict people when I am pretty confident that I have my facts straight. That’s the best anyone can do, since only the delusional are absolutely convinced of their own infalibility.)
Wordman’s right. Who’s to say long hair on women isn’t just a custom, encouraged by the way in which women feel obligated to make themselves pretty for men. Incidentally, ancient China is among the cultures where long hair among men was the rule.
As for the Joy Luck Club, that’s hardly an authoritative source on China; Amy Tan bears considerable resentment towards her Chinese background, even if currently intellectuals in general seem to eat up the “oppressing women” line. Take a look at Golden Lilies for an alternative explanation.
I suppose these days it’s only because they’re oppressed that American women often dye their hair, shave their pits & legs, wear clothing that exposes more skin then men, particularly their shaven legs, strap themselves into bras–even if they’re not pumping themselves full of silicone–and wear high heels. It sounds like a fetishist’s dream. Wait, it’s the real world.
Foot binding came from imperial dancers (or some type of dancers. No cite, sorry). Other Chinese women adopted the practice and pushed it to extremes. Or maybe it was the men who pushed them, but in any case I heard it came from the customs of dancers. I am sure the fact that seriously bound feet made it hard for women to run away (or do anything for that matter). Probably men liked this.
As to the OP I would point out that pleny of men had long hair in 19th century America and Europe (GA Custer for example). It seems like long hair became a no-no only in the 20th century and a serious no-no for only part of it. And what about flappers in the '20s? They often had pretty short hair compared to the previous styles of the edwardian era.
Hair length seems to go through cycles of change for both sexes.
p.s. If you look at the catacomb paintings of Jesus in Rome they all (all the ones I’ve seen) show him young, cleanshaven and with short hair. These are not contemporary with Jesus and probably represent a Romanization of him, but it is interesting to realize that they thought of him quite differently at the time.
If I had to guess I’d say that natural selection would pick up on short head hair only if it actually increased the odds of survival. The tradition could quite easily have developed irrespective of the practical realities of the situation. Anyway natural selection takes AGES. Doesn’t it? Maybe not. I’m guessing.
As regards the relevance of Biblical references… it may be that they don’t cover the majority of humankind, but then neither does the “short hair” rule. The internet is yet a Western-dominated tool, at least the bits in English, and the west is influenced at least significantly by the Jewish and Christian ancient texts.
I accept my big fat error on iconography. I was talking, as I believe the young people have it, “out of my bottom”. I am fairly skilled in this and available for lecture tours.
I certainly wasn’t taking Paul’s letter out of context, however. It remains open for argument - at least, it is still argued, whether helpfully or not. And I stand by my decision to have my hair cut in submission to a pastor who believed it was directly relevant to the modern day. I was accepting his authority rather than his human failings and errors, of which, by the way, I was perfectly aware. It’s a flawed world and we can only make the best of it!
What I meant by this odd statement is that a great deal of the world (I may be incorrect to suggest that it’s the part described in the OP) is influenced by Western nations, thanks to colonialism and now US dominance, and these countries were influenced by scripture. People get very funny about things like scripture. The traditions very quickly become rules, and they become a contact with the old country, and… well… you follow.
Although it didn’t seem to influence anyone in England a few hundred years ago. I reckon the scriptural question is one of relative shortness. However long men’s hair was, women’s must be longer. I still don’t think it’s irrelevant. Especially not if it’s true.
And if homo sapiens didn’t exist alongside dinosaurs, perhaps you’d like to explain THE LOCH NESS MONSTER, HUH? CLEARLY SEEN ON FILM WITH TED DANSON?!?
Ha. Ask a stupid person, get a stupid answer.
