Skip to main content

the significant haircut, or the post where i finally give into the allure of #tbt

the reason that i've never participated in throwback thursdays is because i don't actually have any older pictures of myself in digital format. i'd scanned some a while back, but those were lost to the great computer crash of 2013 [which is what lead to the great disenchantment]. so my records only go as far back as the time that i've had a digital camera and a lot of that history has been recorded on the blog already.

however, a trend is not well and truly dead until i've finally gotten around to trying it, so i figured that i might as well drive a nail in this one. [i'm still sitting on an ello invitation, in case you're wondering.]

so my throw-back photo is coming to you from all the way back in 2005 and was taken the day that i got the significant haircut. of course, i'd had lots of haircuts before- i was already in my thirties- and some of them were more drastic than this- however this was the only haircut to ever change my perspective about how i could look. it was shorter than i'd gone in several years and included a fringe of bangs, which was an idea i'd been playing with for a while, but the real change was that my hairdresser chose to part my hair on the opposite side of where i'd always done it. until that day, i'd always thought that parts were immobile and cast in stone. after all, other hairdressers had always asked me where i parted my amorphous cloud of locks, which clearly indicated to me that there was a rule that they had to follow. why would they ask if it could just be moved around? but no, apparently while your hair has a tendency to fall a certain way, the method in which it's cut does a lot to determine which way that is.

as it turned out, the significant haircut made me realise that i'd been doing myself a disservice by parting my hair on the right for over three decades, because doing so inevitably showed the highest point of my extremely high forehead and therefore made it look like i was going a bit bald. going against that appears much more balanced.

since that day, i have never parted my hair on the right side and i have always kept my hair shoulder length or above; and i have never felt better about how i look. [even though that green eyeshadow isn't doing me any favours and i took the photo almost as soon as i got in, so you can still see the effects of the late fall chill on my cheeks and nose.]

i even did a little blog post about the significant haircut the day that i got it, although its significance hadn't totally sunk in at that point.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …