White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

The Philadelphia Daily News reported Monday that Officer Thomas Strain was put on desk duty this month because of the braids, even though the paper reported dozens of black officers wear cornrows.

Click to expand...

If it isn't racism, its sexism.

Truth Detector said:

That is about as laughable as your notion that it was ONLY about female.

:roll:

Click to expand...

No, what is laughable is the condescension displayed by telling a poster not to comment until they've read the source material when the commenter is the one in the wrong.

liblady said:

Interviewed by the Daily News, Vanore said he couldn't explain why black officers with cornrows weren't ordered to get haircuts — unless they're women. The policy for female officers is slightly more permissive, he said.

are we finished here? denial can be treated, you know.

Click to expand...

The whole statement is contradictory; are only female officers ordered to get their cornrows cut?

On the other hand, the statement goes on to say that the policy for female officers is more permissive; so which is it, black officers or just female black officers?

I think the language was pretty clear, he cannot explain why BLACK officers, OTHER THAN WOMEN, weren't ordered to get haircuts.

:doh

jackalope said:

No, what is laughable is the condescension displayed by telling a poster not to comment until they've read the source material when the commenter is the one in the wrong.

Click to expand...

seriously.

jackalope said:

No, what is laughable is the condescension displayed by telling a poster not to comment until they've read the source material when the commenter is the one in the wrong.

Click to expand...

No, what is truly laughable is your attempts to obfuscate your obvious trolling by ASSuming, incorrectly I might add, that the person I told to read the article had indeed read the article. It only took her about four posts to get there.

But then, you never let the FACTS concern you with your blatant trolling have you?

:doh

Truth Detector said:

No, what is truly laughable is your attempts to obfuscate your obvious trolling by ASSuming, incorrectly I might add, that the person I told to read the article had indeed read the article. It only took her about four posts to get there.

But then, you never let the FACTS concern you with your blatant trolling have you?

:doh

Click to expand...

I made no assumptions about the poster you called out, however I did note, correctly, that YOU did not comprehend the source material, since what the poster you called out was saying was true, and your 'posts' were baseless.


There was no claim in the source material, nor any other material posted afterwards, that claimed that other black male officers were permitted to wear cornrows; to the contrary, there was a quote by the police spokesman stating that a black male officer HAD been required to cut cornrows, and also that standards for women were different than for men.

jackalope said:

The courts have consistently declared your argument baseless. Differing standards for grooming for men and women can be based on social or community norms. Expecting a woman to conform to standard male norms exacts a cost for the woman that the man does not pay. You don't have a legal leg to stand on here, you're just howling victim, with no legal basis.

Click to expand...

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.

jackalope said:

Yes, the courts do so determine.
And, no, re: slaves. You'd be wrong, and btw, nice lame strawman there, Zyph.

Click to expand...

Pot meet kettle. Nobody has ever argued that women should be held to male standards, but you sure have battled that strawman all day.

personally they should all just shave themselves bald.

Tucker Case said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sorry, could you please show me the legal ruling declaring French braids and pinning up of Navy female officers hair to be illegal because male Navy officers are not allowed to wear that hairstyle?

There is nothing in the law that says anything about unisex hairstyles, and nothing about differences must be small.

Tucker Case said:

Pot meet kettle. Nobody has ever argued that women should be held to male standards, but you sure have battled that strawman all day.

Click to expand...

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?

jackalope said:

I made no assumptions about the poster you called out, however I did note, correctly, that YOU did not comprehend the source material, since what the poster you called out was saying was true, and your 'posts' were baseless.


There was no claim in the source material, nor any other material posted afterwards, that claimed that other black male officers were permitted to wear cornrows; to the contrary, there was a quote by the police spokesman stating that a black male officer HAD been required to cut cornrows, and also that standards for women were different than for men.

Click to expand...

You have done nothing BUT make assumptions in this thread and by attempting to play the condescension police and wandering OFF the topic doing nothing more than troll.

Again, it is readily apparent to anyone with a modicum of intelligence of the implications of the contents of the article that other BLACK officers were not asked to get haircuts suggesting there was some BIAS.

Now you can continue your desperate trolling and baiting, or argue the topic at hand. My comments to your buddy was an effort to help her in the future before she asks people to prove what she could have read in the article rather then have a coherent debate.

Now carry on and end your foolish trolling. :doh

jackalope said:

Sorry, could you please show me the legal ruling declaring French braids and pinning up of Navy female officers hair to be illegal because male Navy officers are not allowed to wear that hairstyle?

Click to expand...

Why would I entertain yet another strawman of yours? What part of "there is NO precedent for this case" makes you ask as stupid question about precedents?

There is nothing in the law that says anything about unisex hairstyles, and nothing about differences must be small.

Click to expand...

No, there isn't anything about unisex hairstyles. At all. Thus the "there is NO precedent for this case" statement.

But the logic behind long hair restrictions and such do declare, explicitly, that "...minor differences in personal appearance regulations that reflect customary modes of grooming do not constitute sex discrimination..." since I quoted that directly from Knott v. Missouri Pacific.

Thus, when the case does NOT have anything to do with "customary modes of grooming", as is the case here, there is a legal argument that can be made since... wait for it.... its coming.... there is no precedent for this case!

Tucker Case said:

Why would I entertain yet another strawman of yours? What part of "there is NO precedent for this case" makes you ask as stupid question about precedents?



No, there isn't anything about unisex hairstyles. At all. Thus the "there is NO precedent for this case" statement.

But the logic behind long hair restrictions and such do declare, explicitly, that "...minor differences in personal appearance regulations that reflect customary modes of grooming do not constitute sex discrimination..." since I quoted that directly from Knott v. Missouri Pacific.

Thus, when the case does NOT have anything to do with "customary modes of grooming", as is the case here, there is a legal argument that can be made since... wait for it.... its coming.... there is no precedent for this case!

Click to expand...

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?

Truth Detector said:

You have done nothing BUT make assumptions in this thread and by attempting to play the condescension police and wandering OFF the topic doing nothing more than troll.

Again, it is readily apparent to anyone with a modicum of intelligence of the implications of the contents of the article that other BLACK officers were not asked to get haircuts suggesting there was some BIAS.

Now you can continue your desperate trolling and baiting, or argue the topic at hand. My comments to your buddy was an effort to help her in the future before she asks people to prove what she could have read in the article rather then have a coherent debate.

Now carry on and end your foolish trolling. :doh

Click to expand...

Assumptions? Where?

YOU made the assumption about male officers, not me.

Tucker Case said:

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.

Click to expand...

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. :lol:

jackalope said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

jackalope said:

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?

Click to expand...

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 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Tucker Case said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

jackalope said:

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.

Click to expand...

False. See tattoos.

jackalope said:

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."

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

False. See tattoos.

Click to expand...

Okay, show me the case.

Tucker Case said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

jackalope said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.