Archaeologica.org

Why, in virtually all societies, do women have long hair, and men do not? The Roman soldiers mandated no beard or long hair to not give a grasping point in combat, but what of others? The idea of long dresses vs pants is understood.

Short hair is a fairly new fad in the US, its only been around since WWII. Before that shoulder length for men was very normal. Granted, women wore it even longer, but the difference wasn't as drastic.

Many Greeks, in particular the Spartans, had long hair. Native American males wore their hair long.

But in general in most societies males write the rules.

Have you watched an NFL game lately?
Every thing from shaved heads to over the shoulder.
The league even had to pass a rule that you couldn't grab the hair during a tackle.

Granted, you have some huge egos in both styles.
But egos are not a recent development.
I don't think it has made that much difference in world history.

There is a Biblical thing about long hair for females and short for males.
That may have had some influence.
But, as always, everything is relative.
George Washington had a pony tail wig that he wore when style demanded it.

The avoidance of something to grab in hand to hand combat may have something to do with it.
And a guy with a big ego and long hair saying "Just try it!"

gunny wrote:Why, in virtually all societies, do women have long hair, and men do not?

Your impression is warped, as you consider only a snapshot in time: the present.

Throughout history, and before, men have worn their hair long in 95% of cultures. The past century was one of the exceptions. Like the Romans were earlier.

kbs2244 wrote:There is a Biblical thing about long hair for females and short for males.

It's mute, because there's also a Biblical thing about long hair for males where it governed his male strength: Samson.
Without it he was nothing.
That 'book' is right up there with Hansl und Gretl, with their breadcrumbs, Cinderella and the Glass Slippers, and Alladin and his Wonderlamp...

Fairy tales have fewer contradictions.

RS will be telling me that there's no Sant Claus next!

Roy.

Digit wrote:RS will be telling me that there's no Sant Claus next!

I wouldn't dare!
I will tell you though that Santa is a fake, modeled on the Dutch children's hero 'Saint Nicolas' or 'Sinterklaas', a bishop who lived in Turkey, 1,700 years ago, but for some reason is supposed to come from Spain (since the last 2 centuries), each year, accompanied by his troupe of Black Peters, his helpers, to celebrate his birthday, December 5th, by giving presents, through the chimney, to all kids who have been nice in the past year. Santa, however, was conceived by Coca-Cola's advertising agency in 1932 and simply didn't exist before. Like 'Sinterklaas' he wears red and white gear and a long white beard, travels through the air, over roofs, is a children's friend, and delivers his presents through the chimney. Even the name, 'Santa Claus', is a clear rip-off of 'Sinterklaas'.

Sinterklaas' annual arrival in Holland, 2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60QTB6bvjrw

You've restored my faith in human nature.

Roy.

Minimalist wrote:Fairy tales have fewer contradictions.

Which ones?

Mainly the ones that didn't make the cut and get into the bible.

Minimalist wrote:Mainly the ones that didn't make the cut and get into the bible.

Ah, you mean like the uncontradictory fairy tale of baby Jesus born to the virgin Mary? Yeah, that's much less contradictory than a wolf eating a granny of course! Babies get born to virgins every day, don't they?