Is it unreasonable for a schoolTo insist boys have short hair but not girls?

[Ilovemyself]

Don't want to hijack the other hair threat so started this.

What makes it acceptable for some schools to have uniform rules stating boys hair should be a set length ( collar seeming to be the most popular) when girls can have it whatever length they like?

unreasonable IMO

YANBU
Sexist to make a difference surely? Not unreasonable to ask for long hair to be tied back, but can't see the logic in setting different standards for boys and girls.

Societal norms, accepted stds, similar to dresses allowed for girls and not boys. I Don't lose any sleep over this one tbh

Absolutely unreasonable. But the same rules need to be applied re tying hair back for PE/Science/Home Economics etc.

VVVVU, definitely. Boys and girls should be allowed to have whatever length hair they choose. It has no effect on their ability to learn, or on how they need to be taught, so why is it even relevant to their schooling?

But why are dresses allowed for girls and not boys? Girls can wear trousers. If either of my sons wanted to wear a skirt or dress to school I'd fight for their right to do so.

YANBU. Same goes for other aspects of uniform such as girls being able to wear trousers.

Presumably those schools do have to have exceptions for religious reasons, or it would be excluding a minority.
I started by thinking it's not reasonable to insist that, only to insist that all hair is tied back, or whatever, whether you are a boy or girl.
Then I thought, but what about school being a training ground for the workplace - dress codes for men and women do tend to be different, and I pictured an office where a man wears a good suit while the women wear V-neck blouse with frills and make-up and a skirt.
And then I thought, how bloody ridiculous I am being. I have never worn a skirt or make-up to work. I have worked, always, in environments where trousers or shorts, sweatshirts and t-shirts, and hiking boots were the norm for everyone, male or female. Women have short hair and long hair, and sometimes no hair. Men have long hair and short hair and (slightly more often) no hair. And no-one has given a damn because it's always been about who you are and how well you do your job, not what you look like, that matters. So I'm back to thinking it's not reasonable to insist on one thing for boys and another for girls.

Rules about tying hair back are fine.

Rules about who is allowed to have long hair and who must have short hair - that's just not fair.

Yes, completely unreasonable and sexist.

The same rules with regards wearing hear up should apply to all. Gender shouldn't come into it

Not unreasonable IMO just as boys probably aren't allowed to wear dresses.

It is the one thing that my parents sided with us over rather than the school. My brother and sister were at school at the same time, and sister was allowed to have her hair long, but my brother was told to cut his. My parents didn't like his hair at all, but were insistent that it was discriminatory to allow one but not the other. School eventually agreed. And then my brother had his hair cut short...

I don't think it is acceptable.
One of the schools round here is v strict about it. Friend had her DS1's long hair cut in generic boy haircut to start school. On his first day he was called into the Head's office and it was measured with a ruler and found to be too long on top and he was reprimanded. (over subscribed catholic school so issue of sikh kids doesn't arise).
DS1's school has no official rules, just lots of disapproval of his hair.

Societal norms are changing though.
Where I work we had a bloke for ages who had waist length pink hair and no-one batted an eyelid.

When I was at school, girls couldn't wear trousers. Now they can. It's not good enough to say societal norms are the reason, because those are not set, fixed things. They change. Sometimes this just sort of happens, other times they need to be challenged.

So, leaving aside the idea of societal norms (because it's not necessarily a norm any more anyway), why shouldn't boys have long hair?

As long as both sexes have their hair up, what's the issue?

Not unreasonable IMO just as boys probably aren't allowed to wear dresses.

But why aren't they? If the are deemed appropriate for girls then why shouldn't boys wear a dress if they so wish?

Yanbu.

Reminded me of a friend's son who had long hair, which was fine according to their school rules, but he decided to have it cut after being told he'd have to wear a swimming cap as the girls with long hair were required to.

I think it's wrong to have different uniform rules for boys to girls and I mean all of uniform so hair length, trousers, skirts, ties.

If there is a rule for one then the same rules should apply to the other so either no long hair at all or all long hair must be tied up in a ponytail or bun or any length hair is fine and anyone can wear it down.

Very unreasonable. But not unreasonable for children of either sex to have to have long hair tied back. Think that's where a lot if confusion arises on this issue.

Thefallenmadonna. That made me lol

Glad to see a unanimous stance on this thread - the other one had a few comments on boys having long hair not being right.

I agree totally that hair should be tied back when necessary.

It's just daft. DS (7) has hair past his collar, if it gets much longer he will have to tie it back for PE and gym club.

His dad has long hair and wears it tied back for work, doesn't seem to have affected his career progression in aero engineering.

Sirzy - I am probably just very boring and conventional

I am quite happy to abide by societal norms. I also have a strong dislike of tattoos, body piercing (apart from one earring in each ear for women) etc.

You get the general idea.

Department for Education and Schools: School uniform guidance

School uniform Guidance for governing bodies, school leaders, school staff and local authorities September 2013

"In formulating its school uniform policy, a school will need to consider its obligations not to discriminate unlawfully. For example, it is not expected that the cost of girls’ uniform is significantly more expensive than boys or vice-versa as this may constitute unlawful sex discrimination. A school should also bear in mind the concept of “indirect” discrimination. This involves the application of a requirement, which, although applied equally to everyone, puts certain people at a particular disadvantage because of their gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or belief or gender reassignment. Such a requirement will need to be justified as a proportionate way of achieving a reasonable objective if it is to be lawful, and the policy will need to be flexible enough to allow for necessary exceptions.

Fair enough to have rules about clean and tied back hair when necessary. Unfair to make them gender-specific, or to get fussy about colours and cuts IMO.