to be unimpressed by the school photographer insisting that the girls let their hair loose for photos?

[qwertypop]

DD is in Y6 and has long hair that she wears in plaits for school. This is a) a school rule and b) something I'd insist on even if it wasn't due to nits and tangles etc.

School photos yesterday and DD came home with her hair loose. The photographer had told all the girls to let their hair loose so they'd look pretty for the photos I totally believe DD on this as she hates having her hair in her face, hates wearing it loose, and was furious at having been told to do it!

Is this normal or AIBU to think it a bit crap and sexist of them? Surely they should know that children look pretty however their hair is?

There is parity Boys hair-natural, girls hair-natural

I find it hard to believe the photographer insisted maybe suggested

Complain.

Sunshine, do you think the boys were told to change themselves in order to look pretty?

What sort of twat photographer does this?

Would you care to name and shame Thr photography company?

Did he say "natural" or did he say "pretty"?

It was "pretty".

And - school photo - girls have appropriate school hair, boys have appropriate school hair. There's parity for you.

That's just weird. Slightly different topic but one local school gets the children to put their swim caps on, while they are enroute to the pool on the coach. They arrive at the pool fully clothed, with swim caps, and then he changed into cossies. It saves time I guess but they look really odd.

We had this too - funnily enough we didn't buy their odd slightly out of focus photographs.

I think school photos are an anachronism, nowadays anyone who wants can own a camera & take photos of their child. I presume they date from when film & developing photographs was too expensive for the average family.

Sounds well dodgy to me.

Did any of the boys have gel in their hair? Were they told to go and wash it out so their hair looked 'natural'? Or were they allowed to appear in the photo with their hair styled as usual?

Either way, I would NOT be pleased, to say the least. I'd complain and expect an apology and an assurance that they wouldn't be using the same photographer again.

"girls, you must all conform to what this (twat) photographers idea of pretty is. You may think you look perfectly fine as you are or you may not even want to look pretty. This however is unacceptable."

Dont buy the photo and tell the school and the photography company why.

He was imposing on them his definition of 'pretty'.
Sexist. And creepy.

No idea who the company are yet, I can't remember who they usually use and I never buy the photos anyway. I will be finding out on Monday though!

DD has her hair loose in this year's picture and it is one of the worst she's ever had taken. Pulled back and tidy any day of the week.

DD was told by the school photographer to take her glasses off to make the photo 'pretty'
He was an independent guy. Small school. First and last time he got the job.

Inappropriate, creepy.

And how arrogant to decide s/he knows better than the children/parents/school what looks best!

YANBU. But why does your DD have long hair if she hates it and finds it annoying?

OP said her DD hates having her hair in her face. IME, long hair is actually much easier to keep off of the face-you just tie it back. Short hair gets in your way unless iit's REALLY short. Makes perfect sense to me.

Are you certain he didn't just make the point that they could take their hair down if they wanted to?

definitely sexist and if the photographer was a guy I'd say more than bit creepy

could be worse op!

www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/03/utah-school-apologises-yearbook-photos

yanbu, my DD looks lovely with her hair down and I've got beautiful photos of her with her hair down and pretty clothes on but that's not how i send her to school and surely the point of school photos is to get a picture of DC as they look at school?

Photo or not, I do wonder why it is +/- compulsory for all girls to have long hair. It just gets in the way of everything and they spend ages fiddling with it and flicking it aside and bothering with it. Why not just have it cut, could be shoulder length and not need attention, all that yards of stuff on six-year-olds drives me nuts. One of the examples of unconscious gendering that I had hoped we were leaving behind. If you justify it as 'don't they look pretty', (a) what is pretty and (b) if so, why not make your boys look similarly gorgeous?