Dad chops off teen's hair for getting highlights

[SKL]

The girl had beautiful hair and she looked very happy in the “before†picture.

 

I can’t imagine any teen girl intentionally getting the haircut in the “after†picture.

 

I'm keeping an open mind.  I really don't believe either side until the investigators weigh in - and maybe not even then.

 

You can easily fake before and after photos.

 

It is possible her dad sent her to get her hair fixed and she got the extreme haircut to spite him, then realized it was a stupid idea.  Not saying that happened, but there are all kinds of possibilities other than what Facebook Mom posted.

 

 

My view is that a girl that old is almost and adult and neither parent should be dictating her hair choices.  My 11yo does her own hair, and I would not interfere unless it broke the school dress code.  I have been cutting and styling my own hair since I was 11 also.  It is just weird to me all this behavior around a nearly-grown young woman.  On both sides.  And posting it on the internet - what the hell, she is going to have to go get a job or apply to a college.  Who wants that crap on the internet?

[Joker]

I don't get cutting a kids hair due to lice either. Both dd and I had lice a few years ago and both have long hair (mine is really long). Neither of us had to cut our hair to get rid of it and it wasn't that big of a deal. 

 

I had it several times as a kid and my mom never thought to chop it all off to deal with it then either. That just seems like a big overreaction. 

[Katy]

As to those questioning school dress code - a school dress code that limited natural colored highlights on a child is not one I would allow to be enforced, if I had to go to the school board myself.  A public school should not be more restrictive than the military.

 

I may be touchy about this sort of thing because when we lived in Iowa there was a charter school somewhere near Des Moines that had to be threatened with a lawsuit because they wouldn't let a young black girl have what they called an "afro."  She was maybe 6.  Really curly was her natural hair texture.  They wouldn't permit braids or multiple ponytails, and demanded black girls have their hair chemically straightened.  I don't remember all the details, whether this was an adopted child or a foster child, but her mother was white, it seems the principal may have been a black woman, and the mom said no way am I going to hurt my child by putting chemicals on her head because you won't accept her the way God made her.   Ever since I heard about that story I seem to find a ridiculous amount of dress codes aimed at girls, only girls, and especially minority girls hair.

 

 

Another article says the dad was arrested for domestic violence 5 months ago. And they cut her hair because of lice.

Either way you look at it I call it- how to ruin the relationship with your child.

 

Link?

[Sandwalker]

Some of today's head lice are resistant to the pesticides used for them, so parents just shave off the hair in despair.

 

Hair is a big thing for women, including teens. Many religions, including Christianity, mention it in their writings.

 

 

Trigger warning for mention of spells.

 

http://magicguru.org/self-development/about-hair.html

Edited February 8, 2018 by Sandwalker

[SKL]

The gofundme puts a bad taste in my mouth.

 

If this dad did something stupid, the way to get him to make it right is not this.  I don't know, maybe he is such a creep she shouldn't ever see him again, but if there is any hope of repairing the relationship, then getting the whole world roused into telling her he's crap isn't right.

 

Ugh, stuff like this makes me glad my kids don't have another parent for me to fight with.

Edited February 8, 2018 by SKL

[2_girls_mommy]

The one time we had lice, I treated it with an over the counter stuff that totally dried out and ruined dd's very verly long hair. We did end up having to chop off like more than half a foot to cut off all of the dried dead that it left. I also found a better product when i did our follow up treatment. But that was our first (and only time) dealing with lice, so I didn't know that product was going to fry it. 

[Joker]

When we had lice we didn't use pesticides. We used one of those businesses that use some sort of dryer/dehydrating treatment. Our HSA covered it and they did a recheck after about a month and would retreat for free if needed. We didn't need it as they completely rid us both of lice after the one treatment (and dd had big, obvious lice by the time I realized what was going on  :smash:  ). 

 

 

 

[HeartString]

The way to treat lice is with mayonnaise or olive oil. Goop it ALL over. Put a shower cap on and leave it on over night, 12 ish hours. Lice might be resistant to pesticides, but they need to breath. I got it several times through middle school due to my gym locker being next to someone that didn't bother with treatment. Our lockers were glorified baskets, it was ridiculous. I had long, curly, very thick hair and we never had to cut it, although my mom wanted to.

[Sandwalker]

The way to treat lice is with mayonnaise or olive oil. Goop it ALL over. Put a shower cap on and leave it on over night, 12 ish hours. Lice might be resistant to pesticides, but they need to breath. I got it several times through middle school due to my gym locker being next to someone that didn't bother with treatment. Our lockers were glorified baskets, it was ridiculous. I had long, curly, very thick hair and we never had to cut it, although my mom wanted to.

I'm glad it worked for you; these studies say that smothering them with home remedies is ineffective, and so are the usual over the counter pesticides.

 

http://www.medicaldaily.com/super-lice-are-now-rule-not-exception-what-happens-next-394363

 

http://www.pediatricnursing.org/article/S0882-5963%2804

 

Edit fixed link

Edited February 8, 2018 by Sandwalker

[Tammi K]

I bet there is a lot more to the story.  I feel very badly for the daughter if she was forced to cut her hair, BUT I really think the mom made it much worse by making a Facebook page about it and blowing it all up for the whole world to know it.  She could have pursued the issue with authorities without making it a public matter. It really makes me wonder about the mom's motivations. 

 

Mary

 

The first thing that comes to mind about mom's motives is how powerless she must feel.  How often do we hear people on this very forum talk about how awful the 'system' can be for people who need real justice when things happen to their kids.  Maybe Mom just really, really wanted everyone to know what kind of jerk she thinks the Dad is. maybe she wanted to let his friends, family, etc know what he did in a 'big impact' kind of way. 

 

I'm not saying I think the mother is right. I'm just saying that maybe she felt that she needed to make this is big deal for anyone to take it seriously.

[LucyStoner]

I bet there is a lot more to the story. I feel very badly for the daughter if she was forced to cut her hair, BUT I really think the mom made it much worse by making a Facebook page about it and blowing it all up for the whole world to know it. She could have pursued the issue with authorities without making it a public matter. It really makes me wonder about the mom's motivations.

 

Mary

What authorities? My idiot abusive brother, divorced from my SIL and found guilty of DV, periodically forced my nephew to shave his head and he’s threatened to cut off my niece’s hair too. The only reason he left my niece’s hair alone and now leaves my nephew’s alone is because I have a small bit of leverage over him. There’s no crime or actionable matter in being an asshole and cutting off your kids hair though unless you have had that decision making explicitly stripped.

[Tammi K]

Another article says the dad was arrested for domestic violence 5 months ago. And they cut her hair because of lice.

 

Either way you look at it I call it- how to ruin the relationship with your child.

 

Does that really make sense?  This all happened over the course of a few days. I would think that if she had lice when the hairdresser put in the highlights, it would have been mentioned then.  And, surely, it couldn't become a huge problem in the few days between the highlights and the shearing.    (I've dealt with lice in my kids. It doesn't become a huge issue overnight.)

[itsheresomewhere]

Does that really make sense? This all happened over the course of a few days. I would think that if she had lice when the hairdresser put in the highlights, it would have been mentioned then. And, surely, it couldn't become a huge problem in the few days between the highlights and the shearing. (I've dealt with lice in my kids. It doesn't become a huge issue overnight.)

To me it is a cover my butt so I don’t look bad excuse.

Edited February 8, 2018 by itsheresomewhere

[Bluegoat]

I clicked through the first 5 stories I found when I googled this story, and the Daily Mail's was the most extensive, which is why I included it as the link.  The story is going viral, and was covered by CBS today.  Tomorrow it will probably be on Good Morning America & Today.

 

And to answer the question as to whether forcing a haircut is abusive or not, in most states a punishment meant to humiliate or cause psychological damage is undeniably abusive.  A father disliking a teen girl getting highlights (thinking it is too mature or attractive for a young teen) and then forcing her to cut it off because he's not ready to deal with her growing up is undeniably abusive.   It's simply less permanent than starving a child to keep them looking young.

 

 

I think cutting a 13 year olds hair like that is out of line.

 

However, disallowing haircuts (or clothes) that seem too mature for a 13 year old does not seem comparable, even in kind, to starving them to keep them young looking.

[Scarlett]

Okay, so the mom allows the girl to get the highlights she wants even though she knows dad is against it - maybe even in part because she knows dad is against it.

 

Dad chops all the hair off to humiliate the girl and retaliate.

 

In what way could mom's actions be equally bad as dad's? I really don't see it. I mean, if she allowed her kid to get the highlights knowing it would needle him. Yeah, not cool. But also, nowhere near as bad. Like, not even in the same ballpark.

 

ETA: Also, mom's actions didn't affect dad directly. She allowed the kid to do something (and I think allowed is pretty fair from the kid's grin) - worst case scenario that she even hoped might annoy dad. Dad's actions were directed at the KID to punish and humiliate the kid. So different.

Exactly. I would not be thrilled if my xh allowed something that I did not want our son to do....but this cutting off the girls hair into a boy cut is cruel. Not to mention the highlights were not even extreme. I don't even like young teens having highlights but hers were very pretty and not extreme at all.

 

No way this was even a little ok for the dad to do. What a jerk.

[Scarlett]

What authorities? My idiot abusive brother, divorced from my SIL and found guilty of DV, periodically forced my nephew to shave his head and he’s threatened to cut off my niece’s hair too. The only reason he left my niece’s hair alone and now leaves my nephew’s alone is because I have a small bit of leverage over him. There’s no crime or actionable matter in being an asshole and cutting off your kids hair though unless you have had that decision making explicitly stripped.

Right. I can't see how it would rise to the level of involving police....but wow what a way to destroy your relationship with your kid.

[Scarlett]

It could be considered battery, which is harmful contact without a person's consent. The key would be if the "harmful" threshold was met, I think. Hair is a big deal to many people. In my state, for a foster parent to get a child's haircut, they have to have the consent of the birth parent, obtained through a social worker. In some cases, it is an automatic "yes" from the birth parent, in other cases, the birth parents say "no" and use that to maintain some amount of control over the situation and/or the child.

Same here.

[Katy]

I think cutting a 13 year olds hair like that is out of line.

 

However, disallowing haircuts (or clothes) that seem too mature for a 13 year old does not seem comparable, even in kind, to starving them to keep them young looking.

 

It isn't comparable if you're talking about making sure a child looks age appropriate.  I argue it is comparable if your motivation is to make her look younger and less attractive than her age.  Trying to make a girl ugly as retaliation for suddenly seeming more beautiful is certainly in the same spectrum.  We're not talking about eye makeup that washes off.  We're talking about hair length that takes the average person up to 5 years to grow.

 

Assuming here that it had to do with highlights alone.  If he suddenly thought his 13 year old looked so sexually attractive because of natural looking highlights - the kind that could have come from 3 weeks in the sun - and to control that he cut her hair all off to make her as unattractive as possible.   The motivation - to diminish her, to control things he has no right to control, to stop her from making age-appropriate maturation - is similar, even if the degree of impact is drastically less. 

[Ravin]

Another article says the dad was arrested for domestic violence 5 months ago. And they cut her hair because of lice.

 

Either way you look at it I call it- how to ruin the relationship with your child.

 

I will reiterate that this is a lousy (pun intended) way to "treat" lice.

[Ravin]

Some of today's head lice are resistant to the pesticides used for them, so parents just shave off the hair in despair.

 

Hair is a big thing for women, including teens. Many religions, including Christianity, mention it in their writings.

 

 

Trigger warning for mention of spells.

 

http://magicguru.org/self-development/about-hair.html

 

There are ways to get rid of lice that do not rely on pelicucides OR chopping off hair. We have treated with pelicucides, then also kept hair oiled, nit-combed daily, and keeping covered when going into situations where there was likely re-infestation risk (i.e., school).

[Ravin]

Some of today's head lice are resistant to the pesticides used for them, so parents just shave off the hair in despair.

 

Hair is a big thing for women, including teens. Many religions, including Christianity, mention it in their writings.

 

 

Trigger warning for mention of spells.

 

http://magicguru.org/self-development/about-hair.html

That website is junk. No references, no sources (be they religious, folklore, anthropology, etc.). Therefore, no information on there that is reliable.

[Ravin]

The way to treat lice is with mayonnaise or olive oil. Goop it ALL over. Put a shower cap on and leave it on over night, 12 ish hours. Lice might be resistant to pesticides, but they need to breath. I got it several times through middle school due to my gym locker being next to someone that didn't bother with treatment. Our lockers were glorified baskets, it was ridiculous. I had long, curly, very thick hair and we never had to cut it, although my mom wanted to.

 

 

There is absolutely no good reason to use mayonaise. I use a blend of coconut and olive oil with a few drops of tea tree. Any kind of straight oil (not mayo!) works great, tea tree oil makes it smell like hair care product, not salad or whatever, even if it does nothing else.

 

I don't know that the lice/eggs "drown" though. It does make it harder for them to hold on (keeping other products on or even just not shampooing so hair isn't clean and easy to grab can also do this), and makes combing much easier--it's the combing that ultimately gets rid of any resistant buggers.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Ravin

[Katy]

A similar story.  Trigger warning:  resulted in suicide.

 

http://wnep.com/2015/06/05/girl-13-commits-suicide-after-dads-public-shaming-video-posted-online/

[8circles]

This is something that I could see happening to me if I had dared to get highlights as a teen. What an awful situation.

[Lanny]

I wonder if "highlights" is what my DD had done in December, when she and my wife were out of town.  My wife sent me a photo from the beauty shop they were in.   IF the girl in the story in post #1 had done what my DD had done, her father should not be allowed anywhere near her IMO. 

[Sandwalker]

That website is junk. No references, no sources (be they religious, folklore, anthropology, etc.). Therefore, no information on there that is reliable.

K

[Sandwalker]

There are ways to get rid of lice that do not rely on pelicucides OR chopping off hair. We have treated with pelicucides, then also kept hair oiled, nit-combed daily, and keeping covered when going into situations where there was likely re-infestation risk (i.e., school).

I did post a link above. Here's a portion of it.

 

..."Alarming as this trend is, though, there’s no need to be worried about a lice uprising just yet. Recently developed prescription medications like Natroba and Ulesfia do appear to still work tremendously well against them, though the threat of eventual resistance is certain the more of them we use.

 

Elsewhere, there are other OTC products like LymeMD, which don’t use insecticides at all, that have shown some promise as a reliable anti-lice treatment. Rather than chemically attack their nervous system, as pyrethroids do, the treatment, a silicone-based gel often used in cosmetics, physically prevents lice from excreting water and lubricates the hair so lice and their eggs can be more easily removed by a specialized comb, the latter treatment still being an important part of combatting a lice infestation.

 

Just don’t count on any natural treatments that promise to “suffocate†the bugs — those definitely don’t work.

 

Source: Gellatly K, Krim S, Palenchar D, et al. Expansion of the Knockdown Resistance Frequency Map for Human Head Lice (Phthiraptera: Pediculidae) in the United States Using Quantitative Sequencing. Journal of Medical Entomology. 2016."

http://www.medicaldaily.com/super-lice-are-now-rule-not-exception-what-happens-next-394363

 

Edit to re-post link

Edited February 8, 2018 by Sandwalker

[Bluegoat]

It isn't comparable if you're talking about making sure a child looks age appropriate.  I argue it is comparable if your motivation is to make her look younger and less attractive than her age.  Trying to make a girl ugly as retaliation for suddenly seeming more beautiful is certainly in the same spectrum.  We're not talking about eye makeup that washes off.  We're talking about hair length that takes the average person up to 5 years to grow.

 

Assuming here that it had to do with highlights alone.  If he suddenly thought his 13 year old looked so sexually attractive because of natural looking highlights - the kind that could have come from 3 weeks in the sun - and to control that he cut her hair all off to make her as unattractive as possible.   The motivation - to diminish her, to control things he has no right to control, to stop her from making age-appropriate maturation - is similar, even if the degree of impact is drastically less. 

 

I guess I think that most of the time parents are wanting kids to look their age, rather than looking like they are older.   Even if the parent is actually not really being very realistic, that seems to be the thinking.

 

We seem to expect 13 year olds to be classed for the most part as children - certainly with regard to them being in the category of hands-off as sexually available.

 

But quite a few 13 year old girls are very much wanting hair and clothes, even if they are non-skanky, that make it clear that they are becoming young women, no longer children.

 

I feel like there is a little tension there, and our expectations as a culture are inconsistent.  If it is ok and even good for 13  year olds to look mature, sexually attractive not only in their growth but how they present themselves, and presumably be interested in being sexually attractive, isn't it kind of weird (and impossible to make it work) on the other hand to make it taboo for others to find them sexually attractive?    It's not like 13 year olds being sexually active isn't an issue.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Bluegoat

[Paige]

Same here! My mom made me get my hair cut short as a kid and it looked awful, but she loved it. I look back at pictures and wonder what in the world she was thinking.

Same here- my mom still says, “I wish you’d get your hair cut into a pixie!â€

 

It was awful. She made me do it until finally the stylist said she wouldn’t do it anymore. I think that made my mom reevaluate her choices. She wasn’t a horrible narcissistic parent- I believe she didn’t know better.

 

I do think this story sounds borderline abusive. I don’t know all the details so can’t really judge, but what is being reported sounds very cruel if true.

[Paige]

 

But quite a few 13 year old girls are very much wanting hair and clothes, even if they are non-skanky, that make it clear that they are becoming young women, no longer children.

 

I feel like there is a little tension there, and our expectations as a culture are inconsistent. If it is ok and even good for 13 year olds to look mature, sexually attractive not only in their growth but how they present themselves, and presumably be interested in being sexually attractive, isn't it kind of weird (and impossible to make it work) on the other hand to make it taboo for others to find them sexually attractive? It's not like 13 year olds being sexually active isn't an issue.

I think it’s normal and ok for 13yr old children to want to look attractive to and to be attracted to their peers. It may even be normal for 13yos to try their luck at attracting older people. It’s not ok for adults or much older teens to respond sexually to this behavior. The adults should know better.

 

It’s also normal for 13yolds not to be interested in making themselves attractive to others and not to feel attracted to others yet. Even then, many girls want to make themselves “pretty†at a young age just to gain status among their friends or to enhance self esteem. It’s not much different than wanting to be thought clever or kind.

[Greta]

So honestly, if my dd did something I flat out said no to, I would think making her get them cut off might be reasonable. Hair isn't permanent.  

 

 

 

It isn't permanent.  But when you're that young and 5 years worth of hair growth was chopped off against your will, it might as well be permanent.  By the time it grows back she'll be an adult.  That feels permanent to a kid.

 

Not to mention, we're talking about a girl who clearly enjoyed looking like a girl, and who was forced to get a boy's hair cut (I've had pixie cuts before.  That is no pixie cut.  That is a boy's cut.)  There's something really twisted about that.

[Farrar]

I couldn't find anything about lice in any of the news stories. I agree that lice doesn't make a lot of sense in the timeline. I do think it's legit to force a teen to cut their hair for lice... but give it at least some time to try other treatments. And then give them a haircut that's not contrary to their presentation and personality. I mean, there are pixie cuts. There are short bobs. That girl is clearly girly. That haircut is clearly masculine.

 

If the local TV news can be trusted, authorities did confirm to them that they were investigating and that the dad and step-mom were put on leave from their volunteer firefighter jobs. Apparently some local people helped her get a wig. There was a photo of her sporting a long, dark haired wig.

[HeartString]

There is absolutely no good reason to use mayonaise. I use a blend of coconut and olive oil with a few drops of tea tree. Any kind of straight oil (not mayo!) works great, tea tree oil makes it smell like hair care product, not salad or whatever, even if it does nothing else.

This was 20-25 years ago, trust me, my mother had never heard of coconut oil or essential oils. Probably still hasn't. And olive oil would have been froo-froo. All the teen and Cosmo type magazines at the time recommended mayo washes and beer rinses for shiny hair anyway, so it wasn't that weird.

[Katy]

I guess I think that most of the time parents are wanting kids to look their age, rather than looking like they are older.   Even if the parent is actually not really being very realistic, that seems to be the thinking.

 

We seem to expect 13 year olds to be classed for the most part as children - certainly with regard to them being in the category of hands-off as sexually available.

 

But quite a few 13 year old girls are very much wanting hair and clothes, even if they are non-skanky, that make it clear that they are becoming young women, no longer children.

 

I feel like there is a little tension there, and our expectations as a culture are inconsistent.  If it is ok and even good for 13  year olds to look mature, sexually attractive not only in their growth but how they present themselves, and presumably be interested in being sexually attractive, isn't it kind of weird (and impossible to make it work) on the other hand to make it taboo for others to find them sexually attractive?    It's not like 13 year olds being sexually active isn't an issue.

 

It is never the fault of young women that being age appropriately pretty is also attractive to creepy old men. In the before picture if she's wearing any makeup at all it is minimal and what I would consider perfectly appropriate for any 13-17 year old.  She looks like a young, healthy, happy woman who's not dressing or behaving in any way that isn't appropriate. She's not trying to be sexy.  She's trying to be the prettiest version of herself, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

 

I don't think it's the fault of men for being attracted to post-pubescent young women.  It's practically a biological imperative.  Acting on it however, is criminal.  Even if your version of acting on it is by making her as unattractive as possible.

[Bluegoat]

It is never the fault of young women that being age appropriately pretty is also attractive to creepy old men. In the before picture if she's wearing any makeup at all it is minimal and what I would consider perfectly appropriate for any 13-17 year old.  She looks like a young, healthy, happy woman who's not dressing or behaving in any way that isn't appropriate. She's not trying to be sexy.  She's trying to be the prettiest version of herself, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

 

I don't think it's the fault of men for being attracted to post-pubescent young women.  It's practically a biological imperative.  Acting on it however, is criminal.  Even if your version of acting on it is by making her as unattractive as possible.

 

 

Fault has zero to do with anything.

 

I'm speaking generally here about the idea you suggested, not so much this girl.  I think her hair was fine.  We have no idea what was the father's motivation so I don't think we can really speak to that.

 

I also think it's biologically normal to be attracted to people with secondary sexual characteristics.  

 

It's all the more reason IMO that if we, as a society, want people to read and treat those young women as kids and off-limits, our social norms should support and provide scaffolding of that through social signals.  Emphasizing secondary sexual characteristics through clothing in the same way girls with more maturity do might not be the best way of doing that.

 

Any time you want people to reign in their biology through socialization it helps if you can scaffold that.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Bluegoat

[bolt.]

I didn't see in the article (correction: sorry, I do see it in the second article. It must have missed it in the first one.)

 

Ignore me 😊

Edited February 8, 2018 by bolt.

[Corraleno]

It isn't comparable if you're talking about making sure a child looks age appropriate.  I argue it is comparable if your motivation is to make her look younger and less attractive than her age.  Trying to make a girl ugly as retaliation for suddenly seeming more beautiful is certainly in the same spectrum.  We're not talking about eye makeup that washes off.  We're talking about hair length that takes the average person up to 5 years to grow.

 

Assuming here that it had to do with highlights alone.  If he suddenly thought his 13 year old looked so sexually attractive because of natural looking highlights - the kind that could have come from 3 weeks in the sun - and to control that he cut her hair all off to make her as unattractive as possible.   The motivation - to diminish her, to control things he has no right to control, to stop her from making age-appropriate maturation - is similar, even if the degree of impact is drastically less.

A similar story.  Trigger warning:  resulted in suicide.

http://wnep.com/2015/06/05/girl-13-commits-suicide-after-dads-public-shaming-video-posted-online/

I remember reading about the Tacoma case when it happened, and just crying my eyes out for that sweet beautiful girl. Supposedly her dad was angry about photos and texts she'd sent to a boy. There was another story in the same vein just a few months ago, where a dad beat his 14 yr old daughter with a belt and shaved her hair off as punishment for downloading snapchat, and he was yelling "You think you're all grown up? This is what you get for thinking you're all grown up!"

 

Cutting off a woman's hair has been a common way of punishing and publicly humiliating women for millennia, and it's usually a punishment for some sort of sexual transgression. All three of these recent cases that went viral (and who knows how many similar cases there are that didn't go viral) have the same, rather disturbing subtext: a father enraged at a teen for transgressions that are really minor in themselves (highlights, texting, snapchat), but that involve looking or acting attractive to boys, responds by violating her bodily autonomy in order to humiliate her and make her look younger, less attractive, and less feminine. It's designed to send the message "My right to your body overrules your right to your own body, and I will decide when (or if) you are allowed to look or act attractive to boys." It's creepy and controlling and abusive, IMO.

[amy g.]

I see absolutely no indication that the girl is trying to look sexually attractive. I think she just wants to look nice, look pretty.

 

There is nothing wrong with a 13 year old, girl or boy wanting to look nice. There is nothing wrong with a 2 year old, 8 year old, 20 year old, 85 year old wanting to look nice.

 

In fact, we often view it as a sign of healthy self esteem.

 

What is wrong is sexualizing a completely natural and benign, maybe even positive desire because it makes an adult uncomfortable.

[SKL]

Thinking about this post and a scene in "The Watsons Go to Birmingham," which has a similar scene involving a 13yo [AA] boy who decided to get "Mexican hair" or whatever.  It seemed understandable in the book.  Of course that was back in the 1960s, times were different, it was a boy ... but I think the biggest relevant difference is that the parents were united in the decision to remove the boy's hair.  They both felt drastic measures were needed based on a bigger picture.

 

Again, I don't view hair cutting as a discipline method, especially for a long-haired girl, but it is more the hatred behind the acts (on both sides) that concerns me.

Edited February 8, 2018 by SKL

[poppy]

Giving a girl a boys haircut like that is essentially the same as forcing a boy to wear a dress every day.  It's shaming. Emotional abusive. Nasty.

[Caroline]

I don’t care what is going on between the parents. I cannot imagine a scenario where this is ok. It’s abusive.

[scoutingmom]

 

 

Cutting off a woman's hair has been a common way of punishing and publicly humiliating women for millennia, and it's usually a punishment for some sort of sexual transgression.

Yes. When the allied forces freed various countries from the Nazis in Europe, often the local residents cut off all the hair of women who had slept with / stayed with the German officers. (I wondered at times how many of those women had had no choice with the German officers)

[Tanaqui]

(I wondered at times how many of those women had had no choice with the German officers)

 

I'm just going to go ahead and assume that there IS no meaningful consent between those women and the occupying forces.

 

But some of them were actively spying on the Nazis, tpo, and they still got shamed afterwards.

[scoutingmom]

I'm just going to go ahead and assume that there IS no meaningful consent between those women and the occupying forces.

 

But some of them were actively spying on the Nazis, tpo, and they still got shamed afterwards.

Yeah, I figure that probably 95% or more of the time there was no meaningful consent. There might have been a few that chose to because of access to food/clothes/gifts. I just remember watching a movie that showed the women having their hair hacked off in shame and me thinking "wait a minute......"