The war of short-haired women against dudes and their pants feelings continues. Indeed, it’s gotten so bad that pickup artist/rape legalization proponent Roosh V is calling for state intervention.
In a blog post today, Mr. V cites a passage in an Evo Psych textbook suggesting that men tend to prefer long hair on women because healthy hair is an indication of good health and diet, and therefore of “higher reproductive value” in women.
And if cutting off this hair is displeasing to the boners of dudes like Roosh, well, it must mean that women who wear their hair short are, quite literally, mentally ill. No, really; that’s what he thinks. (Emphasis mine.)Â
If a woman cuts her hair to a short length, or shaves it outright in a Skrillex haircut, we can now confidently say that she is making herself appear less fertile, less beautiful, and less healthy. A woman cutting off healthy hair is one step away from literal cutting of her skin with a sharp object, because both behaviors denote a likely mental illness where the woman presents herself to society as more damaged than her genetic condition would indicate, suggesting that she has suffered environmental damage that has reduced her overall fitness.
Or maybe she prefers short hair because it’s easier to manage? Or because she thinks short hair looks cute? Nah, couldn’t be. She’s clearly a danger , not only to Roosh’s boner but to herself!
She must be monitored by state authorities so she doesn’t continue to hurt herself.
Roosh posts pictures of women he thinks have committed “self-harm” by cutting their hair short, thus transforming themselves from sexy ladies to hideous short-haired monsters.
Really? I’m pretty sure that all this proves is that Roosh has such a hard-on for long hair that he’s unable to see straight. To my eyes, and I suspect a lot of others, these two women — actresses Ginnifer Goodwin and Keira Knightly — look fine with long hair, and fine with short hair. (I actually prefer their short-haired looks, but, you know what? It’s really none of my business.)
But Roosh not only sees short-haired women as an affront to his manhood; he also sees them as a threat to Western Civilization itself.
What should we think when deluded women are actively encouraged by society to harm themselves by cutting their hair instead of growing it out and looking beautiful? One that doesn’t care about the fertility of its women and, in turn, the needs of men who want to mate with fertile women. Unless there is something within a society that promotes beauty in the form of long hair, we have little choice but to conclude that it is sick, grotesque, and sterile.
Roosh goes on to argue that art should reject such cultural sickness and celebrate the fertility of young women.
Oh, wait, that was Hitler.
Setting aside Roosh’s creepy, quasi-fascist obsession with female fertility, I do have a couple of questions for Roosh and the Evo Psych crowd in general:
What about infertile women with long hair? There are lots of women, cis and trans, who can’t do that whole pregnancy thing; many of them have long hair. Would Roosh lock them up for false advertising? (Actually, never mind; I’m sure he would, though probably not without hitting on them first.)
And what about short-haired men? Like Roosh and his pals, many evolutionary psychologists find it difficult to think beyond conventional gender stereotypes. All the studies listed in the Evo Psych textbook Roosh sites revolve around women and their hair, never men and their hair, even though the same reproductive logic would apply to them as well. Poor diet can reduce sperm count and cause infertility.
So why isn’t long hair on men “preferred across cultures” the way that long hair on women tends to be? Why isn’t Roosh calling for short-haired men (like himself) to be confined to the psych ward?
Could it be — possibly, maybe, sort of? — that there’s more to love and lust than what’s in our genes, or in Roosh’s jeans?
Yeah, I was also thinking “What about dudes?” as soon as I got into the red paragraphs. Seriously, this is such an obvious fail that I just cannot understand how anyone continues to take Evo-Psych seriously.
I have doubts (certainties?) that people that think this way have no idea what love is. I am thankful that they wear their misogynistic colors so brightly and wave the flag so enthusiastically as to make them easy to spot and avoid.
Does he feel the same way about men who wipe their own bums?
There’s more to what’s in our genes than what evopsych pretends is in our genes. Hell, there’s more to what’s in our recorded history and culture that a quick trip to the library would prove than what evopsych pretends is in human behaviour.
Each of these Roosh posts make me prouder and prouder of my short hair. And in terms of what’s genetically preferred by evolution, I can say shorter hair is much more convenient. It rarely gets tangled, its easy to brush out when it does, and showers are much shorter. If we were in the stone age, I’d say shorter hair would make more sense to prefer since it takes less maintenance and isn’t as likely to get caught up in the branches when you’re hiding in a bush on a mammoth hunt.
Well I shave all my hair off and I’ve never got pregnant, so he may have a point…oh.
I can’t decide whether Roosh really believes that a woman cutting her hair short is mentally ill, or if this is some desperate ploy for page hits.
It’s both, isn’t it?
Did you know that in Orthodox Judaism women are supposed to cover their hair after marriage?
It’s true. Some women cut off their long hair after the wedding night and keep the remainder covered under hats and wigs, at least while they’re out of the house. Some women don’t even like for their children to see their hair, though most are not that strict about it.
The reasoning for this covering of the hair is that women’s hair is considered to be too sexy, (along with their voices and a few other qualities), so that it would be flirting to show another man your hair if you’re already spoken for, like wearing fishnet stockings or something.
I wonder what Roosh would make of this custom. Would he think these women are chaste for hiding their hair from everyone but their husbands? Or would he think they’re doing a bait-and-switch, cutting off their hair after the wedding? Or would he just weep for the beautiful long locks of hair?
Evo psych must have been started by some stem major that didn’t realize all the questions he was trying to answer were already being handled by anthropology. That would have required some kind of curiosity about the humanities, but whoever it was’s lack of interest and insight into actual humanity is demonstrated by the notion that 200 undergrads at Duke with some spare time constitute a large enough sample size to make broad judgements about human behavior everywhere and at all times.
I heard that there’s a possibility that not all evo-psych is bull poop. But I’ve never seen any evidence for that statement.
Well, that obviously explains why I feel like tossing my cookies every time I look at Natalie Dormer with her undercut.
No one else has said it, but I think it’s important enough to be noted:
Men who don’t wipe their bums are committing self-harm and should be monitored by the authorities.
Ooh ooh ooh, I just realized I’m an evo pysch scientist! Allow me to present:
Kirbywarp’s Super Awesome and Totes Well-Researched Answer to Why Men should have Short Hair
*ahem*
In the savanna and jungles where humanity developed, the men would go off and hunt while the women would… I dunno… sit around making babies. A man would have to go though brush and debris in his environment, which would get difficult if he had long hair.
Plus, long hair can get in your eyes and make it harder to see. I mean, think of all the emo cavemen rocking out to whatever garbage music they listened to in the Paleolithic era. He wouldn’t have depth perception with just one eye uncovered, and so he wouldn’t go hunting and provide for his offspring.
Thus, women and men chose to develop the genes for preferring short hair on men, and men are now genetically unable to grow long hair. QED!
…
I am being informed that men do in fact have the ability to grow long hair. This has no negative ramifications for Kirbywarp’s Super Awesome and Totes Well-Researched Hair theory; it just implies that cavemen evolved scissors instead of short-hair genes.
My awesome and totes legit scientific paper appears to be more bold than I intended. This has inspired me to write a new publication detailing the genetic evolution of being unable to close html tags properly. Coming soon!
@sparky:
It’s both. He takes the strangest perversions of biology seriously, like believing that only a guy should need to orgasm during sex because some bullshit. But really, it isn’t about some bizarre simulacrum of science; it’s about Roosh’s boner and how evil women are for not pleasing it.
Wait, I have an alternative theory! Maybe women cut off their hair SPECIFICALLY TO REPEL MEN LIKE ROOSH?? #mindblown
Lord knows I’m considering it.
Hoosier X, most evo psych of value has very little to do with gender (we don’t know enough about gender relations until long after the Agricultural Revolution to extrapolate, although judging from our closest relatives the Bonobos and Chimanzees, it’s unlikely that Darwin’s original model of females being modest, males being promiscuous is true, especially given that there are clear benefits for female promiscuity for the gene pool and for prevention of infanticide). For instance, it is thought that the reason we might enjoy sugar so much is because it was a good source of energy before we had reliable food sources. All of evo psych is inherently hypothesis though, and should all be taken with a grain of salt.
Yet another thing that should be “monitored by state authorities.” What is it with these types thinking that the government should intervene on every little thing that makes their boners sad? Oh, right, entitlement. But if women want a rapist to serve hard time, whoa there with the nanny police state, princess! These friggin guys…
(Morbid point of interest: he also kind of implies that self-harmers should be monitored by state authorities, which is also the exact wrong way to do things. I mean, we’re not mindless serial killers or anything extreme like that. All we really need is a supportive social network and an affordable therapist that won’t chuck us in the suicide ward for no good reason. Oh, and less social stigma. That would be nice.)
how do these guys explain why my husband is into short hair?! I like growing it out ’cause it’s big and floofy and awesome for braiding and putting stuff in, but he feels like the combo of the long hair and the homemade dresses “makes you look like you joined a weird backwoods cult.” <—- direct quote
SO WHAT IF I THINK THE PENTECOSTAL LADIES LOOK COOL, H?! Plus, hey, I came from a pretty conservative religious background myself and aren't we all to some extent a product of our backgrounds? He, on the other hand, is into a more "contemporary" look that includes a sharp hairstyle, some tasteful cosmetics, and god forbid, some pants.
Ugh, pants
He's not a dick about it but if I do get a haircut, he's perhaps a little over-complimentary. ha
Like, culture and sexuality and the intersections thereof are complicated and maybe a little arbitrary, you guys
@kirbywarp
Wonderful. It is totes believable and with such awesome research you will surely be requested to contribute to RoK (Return of Krap?)
But weren’t the women doing something else, like dreaming about the future when they could ride the c…carousel?
Well, I don’t think this (Frankly ridiculous) notion represents evo psych as a whole. I’m unfamiliar with evo psych, but evolutionary reasons exist for other biology, and thinking evolutionarily could possible open up new facets in psychology- And already have. Think, perhaps, of a skinnerbox. However, this long-haired in women only thing? Inane.
Well, I don’t think this (Frankly ridiculous) notion represents evo psych as a whole. I’m unfamiliar with evo psych, but evolutionary reasons exist for other biology, and thinking evolutionarily could possible open up new facets in psychology- And already have. Think, perhaps, of a skinnerbox. However, this long-haired in women only thing? Inane.
Wait, if it hurts men when women cut their hair, wouldn’t they need to be monitored for violent behavior toward others? Because cutting your hair doesn’t…It doesn’t actually hurt. How is giving men SAD BONERS equal to self harm?
Could the issue be that Roosh doesn’t know what keratin is? He imagines hair and fingernails as living cells? Will the secret hair police also monitor for the grave crime of fingernail trimming?
@natevalian:
Has about as much justification as anything else. In fact, Roosh should be against shaving of any body hair, trimming of nails, or any other sort of subtractive grooming. After all, a body that is able to spend energy growing extraneous things must have ample resources for child-rearing.
“Did you know that in Orthodox Judaism women are supposed to cover their hair after marriage?”
Islam too (although hijabs are also worn before marriage. Muslim women often do have long hair but don’t show it in public.
Mennonites and Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Christians have similar customs, too.
Recent photos of Keira Knightly show her with long hair. That’s the thing Roosh seems to forget about hair, it does have a habit of growing. Also, Knightly is married and pregnant with her first child. So, how exactly does she fit Roosh’s trope of a damaged, sterile woman?