Why are men so turned off by women with short hair?

Lass- are you saying that every choice everyone makes is a completely free choice with no input from social conditioning at all? That there is no societal "expectation" on women to look and behave in particular ways?

Well, confusion all around, then.

You said: I've no idea what you mean by my name being rude. I merely pointed out I didn't 'mean' anything by your name being rude, since I'd never said it was!

I didn't read some as rubbishing other women, though I do disagree with her slightly. I don't think that makes it acceptable to imply that short hair is a 'butch dyke' look.

I don't know who you're quoting with the 'you girlies' comment? I've searched the whole thread and can only conclude you're either quoting from another thread, or making up a quotation to pretend something has been said that hasn't. I assure you, it's nothing I would say.

But the fact remains that you used a derogatory term, which does not refer to you, in a way many would find offensive.

It was in response to the posts suggesting some form of moral superiority for short hair- prompted by somedykes high- handed dismissal-

"How about feminism being about freedom of choice?" Cos that's not feminism, just some sort of wishy-washy liberalism.

followed up by

For whom are you doing all this? Because to be utterly frank, the women concerned don't seem to be getting much enjoyment out of all this effort

But hey, as a little academic proto-dyke, maybe I somehow skipped the 'how to do girl properly' stuff at school

Does "a little academic proto-dkye" get a free pass on rubbishing other women? Rubbishing their choices as "wishy washy "?

It's this horrible "I'm so enlightened and non- conforming" but "you girlies can't see past your social conditioning"

I find it really, really offensive.

If you read my post carefully, you'd see I said that I did not find your name rude. Perhaps that's where the confusion lies?

I have no idea what you mean by this. I never said you did. I literally have no idea what you are taking about.

I don't buy any of this "we are conditioned to think..." as not ALL women want long hair (ergo not ALL women were conditioned to think the same)

I don't believe in easy brainwashing.

Saying that, part of it is fashion. Back in the 80s I always had a short bob, which I thought (think) was an attractive haircut (short enough to have neck shaved a bit ).

There is not as much variety in young women's hair as there was in the 80s. It does seem as if almost all girls want long hair now. It also seems as if todays young people are a lot more conformist than we were, in terms of looks. Maybe I am wrong? We used to have all these "tribes" (punks, rockers, preppy, alternative, goth etc.)

Is it partly conformism and part fashion? It is so boring, everyone with the same hair!

Don't we all just want to make ourselves as attractive as possible? Isn't that normal?
When we were young and 'out there' didn't we all do our best to attract the opposite sex? ( or same sex ) & if we feel more attractive with long hair ( which I do ) then what's the problem?
I have beautiful long hair which I absolutely love, I'd never cut it short just to prove a point ( a point I probably don't even understand )

& trust me, I know plenty of men who spend an awful lot of time on their hair

lass, I'm not clear which 'literary device' you think this is.

If you read my post carefully, you'd see I said that I did not find your name rude. Perhaps that's where the confusion lies?

But the fact remains that you used a derogatory term, which does not refer to you, in a way many would find offensive. It's as bertrand says - the difference between reclaiming a term, and using it casually, is huge.

some - YY, absolutely!

How do you feel about "invert", somedyke if you're being historical.

I belong to a generation where "dyke" was incredibly offensive. I'm glad you've reclaimed it- but I can't actually bring myself to say it. My mouth won't let me.

"I wonder if we're not conditioned to imagine that a look is 'low upkeep' if it's stereotypically masculine, and high maintenance if it's the reverse?'

I think that's a second twist, that males aren't supposed to spend time and thought on their appearance, and women are? But spending hours doing your hair seems seems specifically linked to women, or drag queens. Along with the oft-repeated 'why do women take so long to get ready?'. It may not be true, but it is supposed to be true, if you see what I mean!

If so, I apologise. And what I was getting at was that it is quite rude to replicate offensive terms when you have no stake in them. I didn't realise you did it out of ignorance

You really cannot see why I referrred to terms which have already been used in a way to contrast them with the way other women were being castigated for socialisation? You assume either ignorance or a wish to cause offence? It's a literary device.

I've no idea what you mean by my name being rude. It's a name I use all the time. I assumed you recognised and did the not uncommon response of" let's see if a fault can be found"

I know you were quoting, and I stand by your objections.

And I agree with you about 'gay'.

I would add, there are lesbians who don't conform to heterosexual stereotypes and also don't appreciate 'butch' as a term. Not everyone does.

Just to clarify, I was quoting someone else who referred to "'the male in a lesbian relationship". Just because I really, really resent the idea that one has to be 'the male', or the dominant partner, or the one who does the DIY, or the one who earns the most, or whatever other gender stereotypes you want to sling in. Or that a relationship needs one who is/acts 'male', and one who is/acts 'female'. Or that lesbian relationships need to somehow ape heterosexual ones.................

I know what the original poster probably meant, who maybe thought the word butch was offensive, or maybe just didn't know it? :-)

To be frank, being butch (in terms of not doing traditional femininity) does often get you tagged as looking like a chap, or being mistaken for a chap, no matter how big your boobs are!

Anyway, I'm totally okay with dyke (but some aren't!), butch, bulldyke, lesbian (Oh, but not lezzers, yuck!), even sapphist if you're in a victorian mood :-). But for everyday use, lesbian usually okay -- I personally don't like 'gay woman', because too often, gay gets taken to mean just gay men. And lesbian has more womens history in it than gay.

Eh? Your name isn't rude.

And my point - I thought it was obvious - was that there's a difference between someone using a slur to describe themselves, and using it to describe someone else.

Have you never come across that idea before?

If so, I apologise. And what I was getting at was that it is quite rude to replicate offensive terms when you have no stake in them. I didn't realise you did it out of ignorance.

some - I dunno if that's true? I wonder if we're not conditioned to imagine that a look is 'low upkeep' if it's stereotypically masculine, and high maintenance if it's the reverse? After all, we clearly fall into those fallacies all the time.

No Jeanne you saw my name and thought get a little dig in.

For myself, initially it was probably a desire not to conform to (at least), the straight world. But after a while, the sheer ease of upkeep won out! Whilst on benefits, a shaved or clipped head meant no need for shampoo, and why keep paying even a barber (who used to be much cheaper than a ladies hairdresser, but that is another story!), when doing it yourself was cheaper. Plus I just got to like the way it felt when I rub my head. Hence why I haven't changed it for the last umpteen years.

When you don't conform, then you probably notice more the pressures there are trying to make you conform. Being mistaken for a bloke whilst walking into the ladies (including one famous occasion where I was chased into the loos at Charles de Gaulle airport whilst desperate for a proper loo!) is just one way. It's not that I do particularly look like a bloke, just that most people only have to glimpse a bit of bald head, and gender therefore determined!

The precise ways that socialisation acts may be complicated, but the results, in terms of the fairly major split between what is considered appropriate female and male grooming, is pretty simple.

I m sorry, lass, I didn't realise you were a butch dyke.

I take it that is meant to be sarcastic? I am not a lesbian. For the record I personally would not call any one a "butch dyke" but a poster on here is happy to use those terms about herself.

Apparently however using the terminology which another poster has used, and which you had no objection to her using, ceases to be acceptable, despite the fact I was clearly referring back to SomeDykes post.

Though, in the interests of fairness, you know somedyke was quoting another poster when she referred to someone looking like 'the male in a lesbian relationship, right?

I didn't see the bit where she described having short hair as looking like a 'butch dyke'.

There's a whole industry out there delegating the task to other women

There are several women on this thread happily judging other women.

I'm sorry, lass, I didn't realise you were a butch dyke.

Having said that, I don't buy into fashion magazines or any of that. I don't read the likes of the Daily Mail. I try not to surround myself with vain people.

Perhaps I don't see it.

Did you quite mean that to sound how it sounded, lass?

Jeanne I wonder why you felt the need to pick on my comment given the comments by SomeDyke

^I looked like the male in a lesbian relationship"
There are no males in a lesbian relationship, kind of the definition of one! if you meant you looked butch, not the same, and what's wrong with that?^

If you want to object to the use of "butch" and "dyke" please take it up with the poster I was referencing.

Beetandrussell I do believe that there is pressure to conform, or not. Especially for women. I just don't believe that this is solely for men's benefit.

Just a couple of examples that I can think of. Dh isn't particularly interested in fashion, he doesn't notice whether I wear make up or not. Mil on the other hand offered to take me to 'get my make up done', a few weeks after giving birth, as apparently I'd got to that age where I needed better make up.

I went for a meal the other day and it was my sister commenting on my glasses, my clothes.

It's always women at work who notice if I've lost a bit of weight, or if I'm not wearing make up.

Isn't this basic 'operations of patriarchy'?

Men don't need to spend time judging women. There's a whole industry out there delegating the task to other women.

"I think women are often under pressure from other women. I feel far more judged on my hair, clothes and make up by other women than men."

What form does the judgement take?

Agree on the glasses bit in this country, UK. Some glasses are brilliantly stylish and focus the beholder on the wearer's upper face. But being a specy-four eyes still seems to have a negative press.
OP, I don't think it as simple as long hair equals attractive, at least for most men ime. Hair style is just part of the whole package, as it were. Rapunzel had other issues too!