Long Hair Is For Girls

Strawberry Jam Is The Best Jam

Chapter 8 - Long Hair Is For Girls

It's also worth noting that aesthetic taste can naturally override social cost at times. It's not all one way. Long hair is a good example, and this one relates to me somewhat. Despite being male I've always preferred having long hair. As a teenager and young adult it was just "what I liked." Long hair obviously looked better I thought, and I always instinctively felt that short hair looked angular and ugly. I preferred, and still prefer (though it matters increasingly less these days), the way I look with long hair when I see myself in the mirror. A short, army-style haircut just doesn't appeal to me.

However, it slowly dawned on me - a little too slowly - that what "I like" isn't necessarily what everyone else likes. I may like long, feminine locks, but perhaps that's because I like females, and as a consequence, by nature, that's what defines my notions of beauty. So my personal fashion choices are warped a tad by a sense of what I find appealing. Females, on the other hand, admire males, so they may not be too impressed by guys with girly waves of hair. Maybe the girl in the Sweater Shop jumper would've liked me a little more had I paid more attention to what she liked and focused less on appealing to my own tastes. Though Mick Jagger didn't do too badly, so I can't blame it entirely on the hair.

Most people understand all this instinctively, just as I instinctively once understood that it made sense to "hate" the Spice Girls. At that age I also understood how long hair on males was viewed, however I guess the pull of my own tastes was just too strong on that one. Plus, it must be said, I was never quite the epitome of laddishness, so my instincts probably weren't quite as strong as they otherwise would've been. In fact, another example of the teenage me lying about the Spice Girls serves as a good case in point. Though I played football, and was laddish enough to "hate" pop music, I wasn't quite laddish enough to be entirely upfront about how much I liked the Spice Girls, and girls in general - as in, like liked. Even at the age of fourteen or fifteen I found it incredibly embarrassing admitting that the image of Ginger Spice, overspilling from a union jack dress, appealed to me on a primal level. "No," I'd protest, "I don't care about girls." So I was a bit too delicate for sure. Maybe explaining the hair.

This is where our natural personalities do break the social mould. I remember watching wrestling as a child. My favourite wrestler was always Bret 'The Hitman' Hart. Most the other kids liked Hulk Hogan or the British Bulldog, or some other stereotype of masculinity. Whereas the eight year old me aspired to imitate the guy with long hair, sunglasses, jeans and a pink leotard. I wanted to beat everyone up in the Royal Rumble, but I needed to do it with a bit of poetic cool. Some subconscious feminine flourish. Even at that age the He-Man archetype didn't hold much appeal. So perhaps I was always destined by nature to be a long-haired fop.

The characters in wrestling, and in the Spice Girls, clearly appeal to these natural personality variations that exist. A certain percentage of boys will want the Bret 'The Hitman' Hart action figure instead of the Hulk Hogan one. Likewise, for every girl aspiring to be 'Ginger' or 'Baby' Spice, some will prefer to be 'Sporty'. Another 90s thing that held this appeal was the TV show Friends. For girls you could be the good-looking, slightly ditzy one (Rachel), or the bossy, get-things-done one (Monica), or the quirky one (Phoebe). Likewise, for males you had the dichotomy of Joey and Chandler - the dim, alpha male and the smart, wise-cracking beta. With Ross as the everyman, in touch with his emotions. Navigating the adult responsibilities the other two didn't have.

I remember (anecdote time) when Friends first blew up in the 90s. I'd never watched it, but I'd heard the name bandied about and knew that other people at school watched it. At the time the name just sounded really gay to me. Not gay gay, but gay gay - though the two uses of the word are, of course, related. In fact, to detour a little, this is the thing with language, it naturally evolves. Words become popular because they accurately convey a meaning. You can try to be clever as a writer and find "more articulate" ways of saying things, but you can't really beat the natural swamp of human culture. Millions of people, talking every day, having to communicate. I could describe the name Friends as "twee", but that word wouldn't be quite right. Plus, a teenager would never use that word. Gay is the right word. Yes, it is a bit offensive, but it also conveys the impression accurately. So I can be honest and use it, or dishonest/inaccurate and not. I can't have it both ways.

It's similar with emoticons and text-speak. A few times in this little series of pieces I've used "lol". It's not conventional to use these expressions in "proper" writing, and they're considered low-brow, as they're associated with idiot teenagers texting each other. So you will definitely lose social brownie points for using them. However, at the same time, "lol" is so common because it's actually very useful. When we communicate in person we can use intonation, gestures, facial expressions. They all help to convey sentiment. With the written word we lack those things, so terms like "lol" do help. Your teacher or intellectual friend might say, "No, no, no ..you should improve your writing skills and vocabulary to better communicate using the written word. Text-speak is lazy and bad practice!" However, those people don't complain when they're reading something that uses italics, which also adds tone and emphasis to text. Again, there's no right or wrong. You just have to accept you can't have it all ways. Just as with the balance between being honest and being sociable, there are downsides whichever way you want to go. For me it's "lol" all the way, but I've probably already burned more bridges than you have.

Anyway, back to Friends, lol, I remember wondering why the tougher and cooler kids were watching something with such a gay-sounding name. I also remember noticing at one point that almost everyone in my class had started acting differently. The girls and boys suddenly adopted slightly different mannerisms. One lad even started using emphasis in his sentences differently, "..could I be anymore bored of this." (Look how useful that emphasis is.) I noticed this behaviour change, but didn't understand it. Then I finally saw an episode of Friends. "Ah, they're all imitating characters from this show," I realised. "Could that guy be anymore Chandler." It was a bit disappointing seeing how easily their personalities had all been flipped by a TV show, but I guess in hindsight it was in many ways tapping into characters they already possessed to some degree. Of course, having finally seen an episode I started watching it as well ..begrudgingly. It was a little too sentimental for my tastes overall, but, admittedly, it was a good show. It would've been another teenage lie to argue otherwise, though I had a good go as I continued watching it.

Naturally I resonated with Chandler the most too.