Training manuals for hair designers talk about the issue of different hair for different ethnicities. That it's harder to cut a woman's hair if she has darker skin (usually), because of the difference in how coarse the hair is and other factors- including how tightly wrapped curls in the hair are.
I think it would be common sense that, in general, it's easier to cut the hair of a white woman as opposed to a black woman (since this lawsuit is from a black woman)...I'm sure the same goes for other ethnic women as well. That's just common sense. So, it's typical for women whose hair is HARDER TO CUT to be charged a bit more...also makes sense- you charge for a service based on how difficult it is compared to other similar jobs. Makes perfect sense so far...
Now, a black women is suing a salon in Little Rock, claiming she was charged more than a white woman, and she wants money. (Don't they always want money?) The store where she got her hair cut says they don't charge different amounts for different women, but her and her lawyer say the store does, and they're not going to take it.
This, of course, is yet another example of screams of racism where no racism is involved. Even IF the store had this policy, it couldn't be considered racism to a reasonable American...it's simply labor-related common sense. If you bring in an American made car, and your buddy brings in a foreign made car- guess who gets charged more? That's right, the foreign-made car...because the parts are usually more expensive, and often times the parts are harder to find. When the same similiar logic is applied to women's hair (all hair is different, of course...), it's labeled racism? Of course, it's labeled racism by a black woman who stands to win millions if she wins her case (which is another thing- a woman who sued in a Kansas salon won over $1 million!! That's absurd, and it shows that this is all about greedy women.)
So, we have a profession (hair styling, cutting, whatever you want to call it) that involves more work for women with longer hair than shorter hair (I'm quite sure that women with longer hair are charged a bit more- are they being "discriminated" against as well?!)...to cut coarser hair (let us be honest for a moment...I've met many black women, and they have all had coarse her when compared to any white woman I've ever met- that's not racism, it's simple fact. If fact becomes racism, then we're all in trouble) you have to have better skills and more training. That means that, fewer stylists can do all types of hair, which means that to get these stylists (who exist in much lower numbers), you have to pay THEM more, which also means they will take longer to do a customer with this type hair, which means they can get in fewer customers. It's all business...and this is how every business works. The longer something takes, the more you pay. You cannot expect someone to spend twice as long on one person, and then charge them the same amount- costs are based on what the labor force is worth. More skilled workers are paid more than lower skilled workers. High skilled jobs (such as haircuts) that take longer to perform cost more than lower skilled jobs that take less time.
We know black women, in general, have different hair than white women, and that is evident by walking down any hair product aisle at the store- you'll always see the special section for "ethnic women"- which includes products most white women have probably never heard of. Also, if you simply search google, you'll find many sites aimed specificaily at black women:
http://phenomenalsalons.com
http://www.aaregistry.com/african_american_history/2395/Black_hair_care_and_culture_a_story
http://www.english.ucf.edu/publications/lit3930/gillespie.html
http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp%3Fid%3D6098&e=10053
"Kinky, bushy, nappy, and curly, our hair is our pride and our legacy. It is our strength, our power, and our worth, That is what it is meant to be."
-From "African Hairitage" by Barbara A. Houston
Does this quote make Houston a racist? Can a black woman be a racist toward black women for merely pointing out facts we all know?
Only someone greedy for cash calls this racism. True racism is divisive...but whiners who complain that events are racist when they're really not are even more divisive. Women pay more than men to get their hair done, so why can't a white woman sue and demand that she pay the same price as men? Isn't sexism just as bad as racism? Don't both sexism and racism affect their victims in much the same way? If a woman isn't given a job, and the boss admits that it's because she's a woman...is that any less worse than a black man or woman who doesn't get a job and it truly turns out to be a case of racism? Are we going to allow women to sue to demand the same prices as men? Of course not...then, how can we allow black women to sue to demand the same prices as white women, when their hair takes more time and higher skill levels? That's not even remotely fair. These women should stop their whining and get over it. They may find a sympathetic judge who rules in their favor, but in the end- they're complaints only make matters of race worse. These silly fights over trivial matters such as hair care are completely divisive, and not to mention completely stupid. Let's work to get rid of both.
You're missing the point of both the article and the lawsuit. While I'm not taking sides here, the lawsuit isn't just "they charge black people more." It's actually, "only race is taken into account, not hair length, amount of coarsness , etc." Look:
Still, civil-rights law expert Robert Belton said Dillard's could be in trouble if the pricing is determined solely on race, and not on other factors, like amount or style of hair.
"If they're saying that because of a person's color that it takes more time, then it's obvious that it's race," said Belton, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School.
It's a he-said, she-said case. That's fine if you want to take the salon at their word, but don't misrepresent what the case is actually about.
Just to make my point more clear: a black woman who wanted her head shaved, just simply shaved, would be charged more than a white woman who wanted an intricate cut. That's what this lady is saying. And frankly, if, IF, that is the policy, it sounds a bit racist.
i dont agree. since we know that black women, in general, take more time, more skill, etc...this has to be looked at as a racial issue. shes saying that shes charged more as a black woman, and that its based solely on race. for the most part, it surely is based on race...but few would argue that anyone should be charged based solely on race (your example of a black woman wanting her hair buzzed being charged more.) that is, of course, an absurd idea, and would be intolerable as a policy.
she says that she got a wash and her hair set and was charged more as a black woman than the white women were being charges. what im assuming is- shes race obsessed, like many black americans are (unfortunately). she sees that a white woman is being charged less, but probably never took into account the differences between "white hair" and "black hair," and her first thought was- racism/discrimination.
i doubt a large chain like dillars would be as stupid as to base their prices SOLELY on race without taking into acct the factors i mentioned (and the article got into a bit).
dillards says that the lawsuit and the atty in charge of the case is making an oversimplification of their policy, and that it takes into account (hair length, materias uesd, time it takes to finish, etc).
also...
[[[Still, civil-rights law expert Robert Belton said Dillard's could be in trouble if the pricing is determined solely on race, and not on other factors, like amount or style of hair.
"If they're saying that because of a person's color that it takes more time, then it's obvious that it's race," said Belton, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School.]]]
but, thats exactly the case 99% of the time...they SHOULD be saying that, generally speaking, because of a persons color it takes more time, because its fact. ive met very few black women who have hair that is anywhere near as straight and smooth as a white woman. not that theres anything wrong with that, even tho most terms used to describe the hair of black women carry a negative connotation. even so, its fact nearly all of the time in this regard.
even if the hair is the same length, it stands to reason that a woman who has hair that is much more coarse to work with is going to be harder to cut and style and it should probably take longer (which brings us back to the general case of black women, which would be based solely on race.)
so, in the end, i dont think that the woman suing (who stands to gain a lot of money) is taking everything into acct. it doesnt seem likely that shes merely saying- im black, so im charged more, even if its the same amt of time and skill level...because she simply says- she had a wash and cut and was charged more, and i say- shes almost surely not taking all the factors into acct. and, its hard to imagine a chain store would have such a policy based solely on race. i have a feeling the woman suing is being willfully ignorant of the hair differences and skill levels needs for these differences. the fact that she decides to sue (it doesnt say if she took any other steps, but it seems she didnt take many steps to remedy the situaton outside of lawyering up and asking for money- i assume shes asking for money) lends to the argument that shes attempting to claim more than just pricing based solely on race.
i should also add...even if were talking about the same amt of hair, black hair styles are usually drastically different. and each hair (a single hair, that is) is just so vastly different between white and black women (or most women in this country and black women actually)...
you take this into consideration, and realize that the (usually) drastically different styles and the significant difference in the hair type itself- the way it grows, the way it curls, etc. make for drastically different skill sets/skill levels- this just doesnt pass the smell test for me. all of it makes me believe that this is opportunism based on what seems like a bogus claim of racism. who knows tho, maybe the chain store is racist- it just seems more likely that lawsuit woman is imagining racism that doesnt exist.
and finally...
[[According to the complaint, Debbie Sturvisant went to a Dillard's salon in Tuscaloosa to have her hair washed and set and was charged $30 as an "ethnic" hair fee. The price charged for the same service provided to white customers was $20. Thomas, the other plaintiff, was charged the same higher price while visiting a Dillard's in Montgomery, Cooper said.]]
from what i understand, most salons have fees like this. like i said before, even if two women have the same amt of hair and want just a cut/style- black hair is STILL harder to work with than white hair. even if it took the same amt of time (or close to it), the skill level needed for "ethnic hair" is higher.
so, ultimately, while they may SEEM to be the very same thing (as this woman sees it), theyre not. which is what i meant when i said it doesnt seem shes taking this into account.
----------------
further:
"Even if it's 50 cents, what difference does it make? Even if it's a penny, my hair is just like your hair. Why would I have to pay more? It’s not the monetary value,"
thats from one of the other women suing. if shes a black woman, i cannot imagine that she has hair that is just like the hair of any white woman- which shows what i was saying...that these women are willfully ignorant of the differences between the hair types.