![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It's the small things
Jul. 29th, 2016 07:58 pmI know it's not a big deal in the scale of things, with an orange psycho running for President and the only viable option a white lady who thinks all black youths are criminals, not to mention the airplay the FoH are getting lately... but I saw this piece in the NY Times today, and I just can't deal. It's just so fucking racist, and odds are your average Kentucky family wouldn't even realise what the issue is.
From the "personal grooming" standards:
Hair styles that are extreme, distracting, or attention getting will not be permitted. No dreadlocks, cornrows, twists, mohawks, and no jewelry will be worn in hair... No male may dye, tint, or highlight his hair in any way... [No] afros more than two inches in length.
The only hair styles that AREN'T banned are your basic white styles. Black folks, as well as anyone else with non-white hair either has to buzz it down or pay for straightening. More financial burden on families that statistically get fucked over most of the time any way.
Anywhere REASONABLE, this would be against anti-discrimination law. Not in the good old U.S. of A.
From the "personal grooming" standards:
Hair styles that are extreme, distracting, or attention getting will not be permitted. No dreadlocks, cornrows, twists, mohawks, and no jewelry will be worn in hair... No male may dye, tint, or highlight his hair in any way... [No] afros more than two inches in length.
The only hair styles that AREN'T banned are your basic white styles. Black folks, as well as anyone else with non-white hair either has to buzz it down or pay for straightening. More financial burden on families that statistically get fucked over most of the time any way.
Anywhere REASONABLE, this would be against anti-discrimination law. Not in the good old U.S. of A.
