Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 105

Thread: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

  1. #91
    Guru
    F107HyperSabr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Last Seen
    10-21-10 @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,617

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    False. The Courts have consistently declared that "...minor differences in personal appearance regulations that reflect customary modes of grooming do not constitute sex discrimination...".

    Most importantly: that reflect customary modes of grooming


    Since cornrows are a unisex hairstyle, and do NOT reflect customary modes of grooming between genders, the case has a legitimate grounds ONLY because female officers are NOT prevented form having them as well.

    If they are against the rules for men, they should be against the rules for women and vice versa specifically because they do NOT adhere to any gender norm.



    Thus, legally, there is NO precedent for this case. Previous cases do not apply as the hairstyle is unisex, and not in accordance to any customary modes of grooming.

    In this case, we have a distinct difference of application of a rule (profesional looking hairstyle) based SOLELY upon the gender, and NOT in accordance to societal norms surrounding the hairstyle.
    You have one hell of a nerve introducing facts, reason, and law into an otherwise emotional arguement that a lot of posters were having here. Way to go piss in the punch bowl why don't you.
    I do not recall the Viet Cong asking me if I was a natural born or Naturalized American before they shot at me, they just shot at all of us f107HyperSabr

  2. #92
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    I'm sorry, but what was it you were arguing when you said that if a male cannot wear cornrows than neither can a woman?

    First, you came up with the strawman well before I made any claims about who should be allowed to have the haircut or not.

    See posts 35 and 36 (36 is where you first did glorious battle with your strawman).


    Second, in post 37 all I say is that both genders should have the same standards of professionalism. It's also there where I point out that I'm not talking about making women adhere to the Male norms.


    Third, you actually make the argument that cornrows magically become more professional on a woman in post 39 based on the idea that the military allows women to have their hair up. How that gender-specific hairstyle relates to this situation is anyone's guess, but when dealing with magic, who knows what is possible.


    Fourth, in post 43 I clarify that I'm not talking about a gender standard, but the standard that the hat should fit a certain way. That is not a difference that reflects customary modes of grooming. Therefore it cannot possibly be forcing women to adhere to male standards.

    Fifth, instead of realizing that you are battling a strawman, you choose instead to bring said Scarecrow back, even though it is quite obvious he does not have a brain, in post 45.

    This is AFTER I explicitly state I'm not doing what you claim, make an argument that is NOT based on male or female norms and whatnot.


    Since cornrows are a traditionally unisex hairstyle, there is no legal precedent for ALLOWING gender specific regulations over such a non-gender specific hair-style.

    This is why I have always been specific using terms like "Hairstyles such as cornrows" instead of simply saying "hairstyles".

    You haven't been able to show that cornrows are a female-norm. Thus, your strawman has always failed anyway.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #93
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    Another strawman? Sorry, you are the one that said a court somewhere ruled that unisex hairstyles may not be included in grooming standards?

    I can find no legal cases stating any such thing. Only that the distinctions between the sexes based on grooming are not sex discrimination. I can further find nothing stating that differences must be small.


    You are the one making these arguments, not me. You are stating that a particular form of braids is unisex, and thus wearing of one type of braid cannot be allowed for one sex and not another. And yet, I find that Navy regs do allow the wearing of braids for women and not men.

    So, where is the legal basis for your argument that a 'unisex' hairstyle cannot be prohibited to one gender under grooming standards, and further that any such grooming standards differences must be small?
    How on earth can I possibly have stated " a court somewhere ruled that unisex hairstyles may not be included in grooming standards" when I CLEARLY stated, REPEATEDLY There is no precedent. Do you know what a precedent is?
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #94
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    How on earth can I possibly have stated " a court somewhere ruled that unisex hairstyles may not be included in grooming standards" when I CLEARLY stated, REPEATEDLY There is no precedent. Do you know what a precedent is?
    This is your argument:

    "Since cornrows are a unisex hairstyle, and do NOT reflect customary modes of grooming between genders, the case has a legitimate grounds ONLY because female officers are NOT prevented form having them as well.

    If they are against the rules for men, they should be against the rules for women and vice versa specifically because they do NOT adhere to any gender norm."


    You are resting your argument on the premise that cornrows are a unisex style the case is legitimate b/c and you use the word ONLY because female officers are not prevented from wearing them.

    In order for that to hold up, there must be a ruling somewhere that states that something that is unisex may not be barred by an employer by one sex. There is no court ruling that states that, anywhere.

    The courts have ruled that gender differences in grooming standards are allowed, and they have not set forth a test that says a unisex style may not be barred from one sex. In fact, they have held the opposite: a woman MAY be required to wear makeup, even though community norms include women who wear makeup, and women who don't wear makeup. Not wearing makeup is a 'unisex grooming style', however it is QUITE legal to fire a woman who does not wear makeup.

  5. #95
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post


    Since cornrows are a traditionally unisex hairstyle, there is no legal precedent for ALLOWING gender specific regulations over such a non-gender specific hair-style.

    False. The court has stated that gender-specific grooming standards must not put more of a burden on one sex than on another sex, but no court has stated that something considered to be 'unisex' may not be barred from one sex in a grooming standard for employment.

  6. #96
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    False. The court has stated that gender-specific grooming standards must not put more of a burden on one sex than on another sex, but no court has stated that something considered to be 'unisex' may not be barred from one sex in a grooming standard for employment.
    False. See tattoos.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #97
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    This is your argument:

    "Since cornrows are a unisex hairstyle, and do NOT reflect customary modes of grooming between genders, the case has a legitimate grounds ONLY because female officers are NOT prevented form having them as well.

    If they are against the rules for men, they should be against the rules for women and vice versa specifically because they do NOT adhere to any gender norm."

    What part of "not reflect customary modes of grooming" are you willfully ignoring in that argument?

    You are resting your argument on the premise that cornrows are a unisex style the case is legitimate b/c and you use the word ONLY because female officers are not prevented from wearing them.
    Not even remotely close to what I'm saying. I'm saying that BECAUSE CORNROWS DO NOT REFLECT A CUSTOMARY MODE OF GROOMING" having a policy that only makes a distinction about whether it is allowable on the basis of gender is discriminatory.

    If both men and women were either allowed or denied the wearing of cornrows, there would not be any case.

    In order for that to hold up, there must be a ruling somewhere that states that something that is unisex may not be barred by an employer by one sex. There is no court ruling that states that, anywhere.
    No, in order for that to hold up, all that needs to be proven is that the distinction is not made according to "customary modes of grooming".

    The courts have ruled that gender differences in grooming standards are allowed, and they have not set forth a test that says a unisex style may not be barred from one sex. In fact, they have held the opposite: a woman MAY be required to wear makeup, even though community norms include women who wear makeup, and women who don't wear makeup. Not wearing makeup is a 'unisex grooming style', however it is QUITE legal to fire a woman who does not wear makeup.
    But wearing makeup is a "customary modes of grooming" for women. Thus your argument fails. If it was NOT a customary mode of grooming for women, the courts would obviously have decided differently.

    That's the issue here. That's why there is no precedent. There has never been a case about a unisex haircut that was allowable for women, but not allowable for men.


    In other words, the courts have only ruled in favor of gender differences in grooming standards when they are based on "customary modes of grooming". This is definitely not the case here. There are no gender differences based on "customary modes of grooming" regarding cornrows.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  8. #98
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    False. See tattoos.
    Okay, show me the case.

  9. #99
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    What part of "not reflect customary modes of grooming" are you willfully ignoring in that argument?



    Not even remotely close to what I'm saying. I'm saying that BECAUSE CORNROWS DO NOT REFLECT A CUSTOMARY MODE OF GROOMING" having a policy that only makes a distinction about whether it is allowable on the basis of gender is discriminatory.

    If both men and women were either allowed or denied the wearing of cornrows, there would not be any case.



    No, in order for that to hold up, all that needs to be proven is that the distinction is not made according to "customary modes of grooming".



    But wearing makeup is a "customary modes of grooming" for women. Thus your argument fails. If it was NOT a customary mode of grooming for women, the courts would obviously have decided differently.

    That's the issue here. That's why there is no precedent. There has never been a case about a unisex haircut that was allowable for women, but not allowable for men.


    In other words, the courts have only ruled in favor of gender differences in grooming standards when they are based on "customary modes of grooming". This is definitely not the case here. There are no gender differences based on "customary modes of grooming" regarding cornrows.

    You are wrong about unisex haircuts, there have been several. Specifically involving ponytails and earrings for men. It was held that it is legal to ban ponytails on men, and allow women to wear the same hairstyle.

    The courts have again and again allowed wide latitude in grooming standards. I actually hate the side of the argument I am on, but it is the one upheld by the courts. Women have been forced to wear skirts, pantyhose, nail polish, makeup, and styled hair. None of these have found to be more of a burden on women than on men.

    Trying to show that banning cornrows on men, but not on women, puts an unfair burden on men is not a legal hurdle that would be cleared.

  10. #100
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    You are wrong about unisex haircuts, there have been several. Specifically involving ponytails and earrings for men. It was held that it is legal to ban ponytails on men, and allow women to wear the same hairstyle.

    Ponytails on men violate "customary modes of grooming", as do earings. These are traditionally female.

    Cornrows, however, are not viewed as "gender-specific" or normally associated with one gender.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •