You should wear it short so that nobody can pull or drag you by it, William. The alternative is to wear a helmet at all times, which isn't so bad!
SYSTEM-J
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
All men in the military, a masculine culture by and large, wear their hair short - a requirement for being a soldier but still a convention held specifically to men.
Although that may be where the image comes from, I don't think the military requires shaved heads to enforce masculinaty as such. In part it's for sanitary/convenience reasons, but more than that it's a way of dehumanising soldiers by removing their individuality. The intro to Full Metal Jacket is a good example, although to be fair FMJ strongly suggests the military channels masculinity and male sexual drive into violence.
quote:
I'm one of the few men in my town with long hair. It's safe to say that a quick survey will yield a 95% short-hair-cuts for men when I head out in fifteen or so minutes. So, yes, short hair is a convention of masculinity.
In your country. Not everywhere in the world. Including countries where the military requires shaved heads. It's not like Catholic European/South American countries are massively culturally removed from the West either. Why do you reckon?
EddieZilker
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Although that may be where the image comes from, I don't think the military requires shaved heads to enforce masculinaty as such. In part it's for sanitary/convenience reasons, but more than that it's a way of dehumanising soldiers by removing their individuality. The intro to Full Metal Jacket is a good example, although to be fair FMJ strongly suggests the military channels masculinity and male sexual drive into violence.
In your country. Not everywhere in the world. Including countries where the military requires shaved heads. It's not like Catholic European/South American countries are massively culturally removed from the West either. Why do you reckon?
Perhaps it is more an American phenomena than in other countries - the adherence to short hair-cuts as a generally accepted signifier of masculinity. I suspect that homeovestic tendencies, among other reasons, may explain part of that gulf. As a mere correlation, America is also behind other countries when it comes to populations of women in power along with how women are paid. Here, the gender roles are a little more distinct while equality for the sexes is a little less advanced.
igottaknow
Billiam you are crazy with long or short hair. So, do whatever comes natural.
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Really? This is interesting... Got any source?
"Christian Iconography: a study of its origins" by Andre Grabar is a pretty comprehensive book tracing the development of Christian symbols including the image of Jesus. Also, simply looking at images of Jesus from the first seven centuries along side contemporary non-christian paintings from same areas clearly shows this evolution in Jesus' image tends to be reflective of what physical qualities the prevailing culture of the period and area find most desirable.
As for the part about Jesus being entirely ordinary in appearance; all the gospels and several of Paul's letters note this rather regularly. Now, one could take two views of this... either a) he was entirely ordinary in appearance (which would be in keeping with the gospels acertion that his pre-ministry life was entirely ordinary) or b) the gospel writers and Paul were big on the messianic prophesies of the old testiment, which often referred to the messiah as being ordinary in appearance. I find it more probable that he looked much the same as any other working class jew of his time then otherwise, as it both fits with the theological views on Jesus and it's only logical to assume he would have appeared much the same as his cohorts.
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
"Christian Iconography: a study of its origins" by Andre Grabar is a pretty comprehensive book tracing the development of Christian symbols including the image of Jesus. Also, simply looking at images of Jesus from the first seven centuries along side contemporary non-christian paintings from same areas clearly shows this evolution in Jesus' image tends to be reflective of what physical qualities the prevailing culture of the period and area find most desirable.
As for the part about Jesus being entirely ordinary in appearance; all the gospels and several of Paul's letters note this rather regularly. Now, one could take two views of this... either a) he was entirely ordinary in appearance (which would be in keeping with the gospels acertion that his pre-ministry life was entirely ordinary) or b) the gospel writers and Paul were big on the messianic prophesies of the old testiment, which often referred to the messiah as being ordinary in appearance. I find it more probable that he looked much the same as any other working class jew of his time then otherwise, as it both fits with the theological views on Jesus and it's only logical to assume he would have appeared much the same as his cohorts.
Cool, I'll try to get hold of this book :)
Capitalizt
Meet Jesus..
lol
we_R_DNA
Long hair for the win!!
I still have yet to cut my long ginger hair woohoooooo
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
Meet Jesus..
lol
I don't think this has anything to do with my beliefs... I don't see why that drawing is funny.
igottaknow
Makes me wonder if Mohammad had long hair? Too bad he was camera shy.
Schadenfreude
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I don't think this has anything to do with my beliefs... I don't see why that drawing is funny.
because apparently jesus is the fat dude from the hangover.
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I don't think this has anything to do with my beliefs... I don't see why that drawing is funny.
I reckon it's because he looks rather confused. This is not exactly the sort of facial expression you'd expect from Jesus.
