(Note:  My last entry contained a syntax error.  The line about Obama's openness in regards to his positions should have ended with "he couldn't afford to be open or honest.")

 

The above case deals with legalized sex discrimination against men with respect to dress-codes.  Specifically, it relates to hair length.  Under present law (per this judicial precedent), a company can force men to wear hairstyles which conform to a specific boundary template, while anything goes with women.  The opinion is justified on the basis of "social mores".

 

This language is disturbing.  At one time, racial discrimination was a "social more".  Mandatory retirement ages were once a "social more"; now, anyone at or over the age of forty can pursue an age discrimination case.  Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was once encouraged.  People were once excluded from many fields and institutions because their reproductive systems were carried internally, as opposed to being carried externally.  Despite the apparent coarsening of the culture, I still believe that society at large has learned from the mistakes of its forbears.  But my belief is thrown off kilter when I read company dress codes. 

 

Fast-forward to 2008.  Don't even think of excluding someone on the basis of any of the above categories.  It's okay for men to wear earrings in some companies.  Women can wear their hair as long as they please.  Should it be a potential occupational hazard, they can always tie it back.  I don't have a problem with that.  Women can wear their hair as short as they please (which, by definition, includes many men's hairstyles).  Upon further examination, though, is it really a "social more" for a woman to wear a man's hairstyle?

 

I don't have a problem with people wearing their hair in whatever style they please.  What I DO have a problem with is the idea of being excluded from a set of people allowed to engage in a behavior on the basis of my reproductive system (that which, by definition, defines me as "being male").  Sex discrimination is against the law.  At least, it's supposed to be.  Succinctly, either discrimination upon the basis of sex as a condition of employment is either illegal or legal.  It is WRONG for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia to selectively apply law as they see fit.  The job of those people in the black robes is to apply the law as it exists.  Any snags which arise are to be worked out by those elected bodies called "legislatures".

 

Equality is a "warts and all" proposition.  As Bill Maher would ask, "Does anybody have a problem with that?"