Hair does (i repeat) NOT have a gender.

Hi Chris,

I totally agree with you from a philosophical as well as personal point of view.

I made a conscious decision when I was in my 20s to not have children. Even in my early 20s I was a workaholic maniac and driven beyond belief. I would work nonstop for as long as 3 days straight w/out sleep. I watched my friends over the years try to juggle careers and kids and struggle with both. I have devoted my life to my career and felt that I would only do a half assed job of being a parent if I tried since I knew that I would always have this career drive. So I directed my maternal urges towards my nieces and nephews and the kids of my best friends. Of couse my two companies are my "babies" as are the people who visit HairBoutique.com.

Anyway, needless to say, my decision has netted me a lot of unusual and sometimes negative responses. I love children but felt I couldn't be a good parent while being a workaholic manic. That was my choice. I don't judge anyone else for their own personal decisions but I have been criticized, attacked and pitied for not having kids. Oh well. Such is life. :-) And I might add that I have never had any regrets about my choices.

Ultimately everyone needs to be true to who they are and their chosen lifepath.

Best wishes,
Karen

Interesting topic. All of you have good insights into this issue:

Western Europe has been much less successfull at integrating and assimilating immigrants into their population than Americans. After all 98% of Americans are non-Native-Americans, immigration is our tradition.
Even White Christians from Eastern Europe or South America haven't fully integrated into Western Europe much less Muslim immigrants. Witness the rise also of National Front/Neo-Fascist anti-immigrant political parties in Western Europe. They have garnered 27% of the vote in Austria, 24% of the vote in Holland, 18% of the vote in France in recent elections. With the possible exception of large cosmopolitan cities like London or Berlin, immigrants are not integrating well and are not welcomed by the general population.
The other problem is that within a generation, the birthrates of the immigrants drop to low West European levels. The end result:- You end up with ultimately a smaller population in the country and a more balkinized population. Western European leaders know this and that is why even though they could use the extra workers they are clamping down on immigration nearly everywhere in West Europe. They obviously don't want to create a Bosnia in their countries.
So what is the answer?- To have more kids. That's obvious.
In the 1970s the Scandinavian countries, excluding Iceland, had the lowest birthrates in the world. Alarmed, the Scandinavian governments, starting in the early 1980s , started to announce to their public, via the media, at public meetings, even in the schools, that they would have to start having more children. The Scandinavian governments also strarted paying significant bonuses to people to have more children; the more kids they had, the larger the financial bonuses.
As a result of this, social pressure increased on people to have more kids, and along with the financial incentives, birthrates rose. Throughtout the 1980s and 1990s the Scandinavians had higher birthrates than other West Europeans, birthrates that rose to American levels. By 2000, Scandinavian countries like Norway, Denmark and Finland had birthrates nearly double that of low birthrate countries like Italy, Germany, and Japan.


It is healthy and normal of course for people to have children anyway. Children are a bit of a hassle but they are fun, they are life, and they are the future.

Healthy, loving, societies have enough kids. I am so grateful for my three kids; whatever problems they have and whatever financial sacrifices I need to make for them they are worth it.
It was interesting what you said Kathy Ann concerning lesbian couples in the U.S.; - how many lesbian couples also have children as you and your lady apparently do. It really shows you the difference in countries, how not only hetrosexuals but even lesbian women in more family-orientated and traditionally conservative societies like America have kids, whereas in some places in West Europe even healthy, fertile, hetrosexual couples choose to have no kids or very few kids. Europe is not more polluted nor are couples more infertile in Europe than in the U.S. or Mexico, if anything they have stricter environmental laws than we do. It is all in the attitude about children and families.

Very interesting topic. Thanks to everyone for their ideas and input on this topic.

* Thank you for your replies uzma and A.C.

I have read a little bit about what you mentioned A.C..

Maybe that is what gave me the idea.

That and the fact that North and South America, at current rates of growth, could eventually get too crowded{heaven forbid!}.

Hi KathyAnn

Although native Western Europeans are tending to have fewer/no offspring in each new generation, the population is increasing due to immigration. Immigrants from certain countries tend to have large families. So we are in no danger of de-population.

I could talk about the "why" question regarding falling birth rates among the W.Es, but that would take us way off topic.
I will just say that many social factors exist that discourage us from reproducing and in parallel to this, fertility in both sexes is on the decline.

Uzma

Hi everyone,

I wanted to reply sooner, alas, along came distractions. Anyway... this has been a very interesting topic. I don't know what I can add that hasn't already been said... all I can do is offer brief comment from my own perspective.

The fact that a man's hair can grow just as long as a woman's hair is evolutionary evidence that the ability to do so is not a biological "mistake." Kintaro detailed specific biological differences between genders, but there are other "parts" for which the gender is not visibly discernable (such as eyes). That the vast majority of men in "Western" societies wear their hair short is simply the result of acculturation. Within this culture, it is very easy to see a head of long hair and automatically assume that the possessor thereof is a woman, and thus, it can be disconcerting to learn that the possessor of a given head of long hair is actually a man. This could lead to a discussion on the importance people place on ascertaining the gender of others...

Part of living life is embracing your identity. I can't speak for all, but a part of mine lives in a place that can only be defined by me to be a feminine realm. I would not deny it. I celebrate my femininity, because to deny it is to ignore part of my soul.

I don't expect you to understand this. I also take extreme offense if you think it is something to hide behind. Au contraire friend, as professional who has to work with many chauvenists, it would be easier to dress and act less "feminine" but I am braver than that.

jacqui

Looking at genetics in isolation (from nurture/culture/socialization):-

Female = xx chromosome

Male = xy chromosome

The “labels” and gender differences are established by Nature.

Our genes determine the gender of an embryo and also the resulting gender-biased hormones that will be “firing on all cylinders” through the organism as it develops.
Hormones drive (amongst other things) …behaviours, instincts, response to stimuli…..

The social/cultural erosion of gender differentiation can only be superficial, except in a genetic-modification scenario (oh! Are we there already?)

Lets see…the birth rate among Western Europeans is falling dramatically. Many social and industrial factors are leading to reduced sperm counts and hormone related ovarian, breast and testicular cancers are rife.
Our organs of gender differentiation are going through a challenging time!

Socially, there is a move towards androgyny, in my opinion.
Androgyny is tied into individual expression as a package sometimes and sold to the intellectual strata of society. I have seen it in Europe – I am ignorant of what goes on elsewhere in the developed world.
I conclude that we are raised to de-value, questions and sometimes fear the fullness of our primal and intrinsic male and female – ness.

Personally, I accept/respect a man with breasts on a social and emotional level. Biologically, I would not want to reproduce with him. I am repelled by female-type traits on a man. I desire and enjoy our respective differences.

In the light of the above, is the fundamental argument of this thread that Nature is not politically correct?
Nature is definitely working to a male and female prototype. Our survival as a species depends on whether we arrogantly defy Nature or allow her to flower fully.

"When taken care of, it is nice, pretty and good-looking, it makes her feel good. "

It also makes me feel very, VERY female. That's why I said "feminine" and not "good". I meant "feminine". And since we are talking about feelings, mine, there really is no argument here.

From a personal standpoint, I happen to think that long hair on men looks very masculine, very male. I've had a boyfriend or two with long hair and I liked their look very much. I certainly don't see long hair as being feminine in and of itself. I don't believe I implied it, either.

*Hair length in regards to masculinity and feminity is completely cultural. Long hair is no more "feminine" than short hair. The same with short hair. In Africa for centuries both men and women have had very short hair or shaved heads. Likewise at times on other continents long or short hair on men or women varied from culture to culture.

Likewise our sexuality has varied. True most people are hetrosexual but there have also always been gays, lesbians, and certainly bisexuals. Bisexual women often raised children with other women in some cultures. So much of hair fashion, clothing and even sexuality is cultural.

Hair, like other aspects of culture varies from culture to culture.

I think this is a very valid point. I never, never refer to long hair as feminine, unless qualified on a particular woman, but not in general. I see long hair as sexually enhancing, be it on a man or on a woman. On a man, it enhances his masculinity, and on a woman, it enhances her femininity. The reason is simple, but hairiness in general is indicative of sexual maturity, while lack of bodily/overall hair indicates sexual immaturity, as demonstrated by children. In fact, when considering total body hair, men are hairier than women, so if anything, bearing a lot of hair is a masculine, not feminine trait. Hair enhances the angularity/shape of the person, rather than smoothing it out.

Additionally, if we're talking about human practice through history, very few time periods transpired where men had short hair as the rule. Such time periods were abnormal, not common. The present, modern time is one of those times. Otherwise, long hair on both sexes has always been the norm.

Personally, I am turned off by these ads for exercise equipment, where the "buff" man suddenly appears shaven. I even see body depilatory kits for men to remove their body hair. What the heck is going on? Why is the world so fearful of hair? I'll tell you why: it's sensual! Not just sensuous, but sensual. It hearkens back to eons ago when our species focused mainly on basic survival. Lifespans were short. Life was hard. Don't waste your time on the immature. Go for the real thing. Mate, provide offspring, ensure the species survives. Who the heck wants children or a childlike appearance for this?

So in today's world, we emphasize hairless bodies, and now short hair. I really have to wonder why there is such a determined focus on youthfulness, in hairlessness, in denying maturity and adulthood. It's a bit creepy.

Jennifer Eve