6 yr old with Mohawk sparks debate
 

Child's mohawk causes debate



AUBURN, California (AP) -- It used to be that schoolchildren might get their mouths washed out for using blue language. These days at Pleasant Ridge Elementary School, they're more likely to have their hair washed out -- for sporting a blue mohawk.

Parents of a 6-year-old boy say they plan to consult an attorney after a school principal washed bright blue dye out of their son's punk-style haircut.

Levey Padocs Jr.'s father said he allowed his son to get the distinctive 'do more than a month ago for behaving better in class.

But parents of the boy's kindergarten classmates complained the haircut would spoil an upcoming class photo, so Principal Derek Cooper said he washed the boy's hair in the nurse's office after getting permission from the boy's mother.

The boy's father said neither he nor the mother approved the washing. They plan to discuss the situation with an attorney.

"Leave him alone. He's not a problem child. He's not hurting anyone," Levey Padocs Sr. said. "He's an individual, and that's how he's expressing his individuality."
---

IMO he's 6, he's still not truly aware of his individuality or individual self. I think that it's more the parents who are fighting for this because they think that it's cool. Just like the parents in NYC who were put their child on a vegan diet because that's what they felt was best for the child, I think the intent is well but the action needs some work.

My sister (15 at the time) had a mohawk for a while. It was fucking huge. Probably the biggest one I've ever seen. It was bright pink. She didn't get sent home or have to get it washed out or anything like that. hmm.

The principal's reason for washing out the mohawk is pretty lame. Do they keep ugly kids out because they'll "spoil the photo"? Or kids who wear ugly clothes? Please. If it was disrupting class, or specifically against the dress code, I could see it. But just because some of the other kids thought it would spoil their picture - feh. Conformist whiners. I disagree that a 6-year-old is not aware of his individuality. Kids that age have very distinct preferences and are starting to form the kind of self-awareness that makes them brats by the time they're 8 ;)

a hairstyle's a hairstyle........some people choose to get take the opportunity to indulge in offensive tactics and make a big deal out of one kid's spiky hair. Way to go, parents!

aaahh... :) said from the lady who KNOWS kid development AND has purple hair.

I'm not worthy. I'm not worthy.

Re: 6 yr old with Mohawk sparks debate
 

Erm, so what's the problem?

They give permission, but now they see big dollar signs and decide to consult a lawyer?!!

Schools should have a dress code and even uniforms. Avoids all this kind of nonesense.

And whilst I rarely disagree with lurkette, I think the idea of a 6 year old with a mohawk is just plain stupid.


Mr Mephisto

If she (mother) gave consent to the school, then there is no case.

punk kids...

Re: Re: 6 yr old with Mohawk sparks debate
 

I couldn't agree more. When/if I ever have a kid he/she will never sport a mohawk while living under my roof.

With that said, I was sent home from school when I was a freshman because I shaved my head..... It wasn't against any rules or anything like that. My mom brought me back to school and cussed out the principal of my school in front of everyone, and that was the end of that. 13 years later I'm still shaving my head. ;)

My son who is now 8 wanted (and still does) a mohawk when he started first grade (which means he was 6). I seriously considered letting him have one too. The reason I said no, was not because I felt it was ridiculous for a 6 y.o. to have one, but because I didn't want problems with people (namely the school staff) who might. He never asked about dying it blue, however I don't see what the big deal is, it's only hair. I think that if the parents did not give permission to the principal to wash the dye out, then the kid and parents deserve an apology, nothing more, nothing less.

Depends on the situation. If the parents gave permission, then there's no grounds for anything. If they did not, then the principal is lying and disciplinary action should be taken.

Upon who does the burden of proof lie?

http://david.snu.edu/~dwilliam.fs/s9...ion/mohawk.jpg

I pity da fool that disses the mohawk

I wonder what they do with all the fat kids when it's time to take that class photo. Or kids with big ears, or braces.

Be anything you want to be, as long as you're the same as everyone else.

read the entire article. principal said he got permission, both parents deny giving permission. i would be incredibly offended if my child's principal took my child against their will in and washed their hair. so maybe a blue mohawk isn't the best plan for a 6 year old, but if the parents insits they didn't authorize the washing, then there's real issues. i would never allow an authority figure to manhandle my child like that.

Re: Re: Re: 6 yr old with Mohawk sparks debate
 

I started shaving my head my senior year in high school, and have had absolutely no problems with the authorities. Also, my school is at least half black, and about a third Hispanic, and I have had no problems with them thinking I was a white supremacist.

As far as the kid goes, he shouldn't be forced to change his hairstyle by anyone other than his parents, regardless of problems that he may or may not have caused (which he didn't in this case). I don't think hair has a definite effect on behavior.

I definitely agree there. I used to be something of a problem child when i was young and I hated authority figures to begin with. If I were in that kid's shoes it would be a huge indignity to me, and I would be seriously pissed off if someone did that to my kid.

I may not think a blue mohawk is a great idea for a 6 year old, but when i was about 10 I wanted the barber to shave my initials in the back of my head and my dad wouldn't let me. Now I am thankful I didn't get it done. But if I did get it done and the principal took to shaving the rest of my head.... Just thinking about it boils my blood.

Is there a no mohawk or no wild hairstyle clause in the school dresscode? No? Oh, ok then the principal is an asshat who should never have touched the kid. And if it IS in the dress code, the principal should have called the parents to come get the kid and THEY can wash his hair. The principle has no business putting water on that kids hair unless it's on fire.


Plus, why is it that so many parents think that what some OTHER kid is sporting will ruin the picture of THEIR kid. A kid in row 1 with a blue mohawk does not make your little bundle of joy in row 3 look any uglier.

That said, why a parent would allow a 6 year old to have a mohawk of any color is beyond me.

Dammit if my son wants a blue mohawk then he can have one if the school does not like it they can kiss my ass.
They would have hell for it.

I like mohawks. I'm with the majority (I think) on this: if the parents didn't give consent, then the principal is guilty of what I feel is almost a criminal act. (Some "pal".) If the parents gave consent, then it's really their own fault.

The article almost makes it sound as if the parents are divorced. I know that if something were to be done with my child that wasn't a medical emergency, then I'd want to consult with the OTHER half of my parental team on it.

Go ahead, sue a school!

That's like robbing a bum.

In middle school I can remember many times my friend Amanda being forced against her will to wash her hair out as soon as she stepped foot in the building. Their reasoning was that it created a disturbance in the learning environment, and was disrupting kids during class.

Facist cockgobblers.

When mohawks are outlawed, only outlaws will have mohawks...

Won't somebody please think of the children!?

So very true. Our public schools are in enough shit already. Just let the kid wear the mohawk if he wants it, and leave it at that.

Damn... it's a fucking haircut.

Why are people up in arms over it being "stupid" or "unnacceptable for a 6 year old"?

Let them do what they want to do, it's not hurting anyone. It's not hurting you, your mom, your brother, or your next-door-neighbor. It's HAIR. Damn.

I had a mohawk when I was about 8-9. It was already red so there was no need to dye it. Mine wasn't very big though.

I see no problem at all with a blue mohawk, or being put on a vegan diet, As long as their healthy. He said he got permission, which he probably didn't. His excuse was also lame.

Why is this news?

Principal had a ridiculous reason for doing it. It sounds like they don't have a case although I suppose the woman could like about it.

That made me giggle :)

THIS made me laugh hard, out loud. I hate when I do that at work!

Because whether parents like it or not, school is not just to teach the kids how to read and figure. It's to prepare them for interaction in a work environment. In other words, they should be learning from an early age that there is a time and a place for extremes, and there is a time and a place to look like a normal human being.

If they show up to a job with a blue mohawk, they'll get fired unless they're DJing at a punk club.

If the kid wants a mohawk, he can have one during the summer. That's the time and place for a kid to. . erm. . let his hair down. Once he gets to school, he needs to start learning that while crazy hair is fun, it's not generally accepted when you are working in a peopled environment.

A blue mohawk on a <b>six-year old ?</b>
Gimme a break.
I'm sorry, but there is no six-year old that I've ever known that even has a clue as to the concept of individuality. If you doubt me, ask the next 6-year old you run across what 'individuality' means to him. He probably just likes Marge Simpson.

As a taxpayer I would be appalled that the parents would try to steal money out of my pocket as a result of them lacking the parenting skills to make decisions for their 6-year old child. Who do they think pays when a school board gets taken to court?

And yeah - some of us are "conformist whiners," I guess, when we find it wrong that the 'rights' of one student are allowed to trample the rights of every other student in the class. That's the problem with most people on the "It's my right" bandwagon - they're too busy yelling about themselves to ever consider the rights of everyone else.

______________________________________

p.s. How 80's.

They may not know the word "individuality" but they certainly have an emerging concept of being able to make decisions for themselves, and they certainly recognize differences between themselves and others. Go read some Piaget.

The kid wanted a mohawk. The parents let him have it as a reward for behaving well in school. Sounds to me like the kid has some distinct preferences that ought to be respected to the extent that they don't clash with the school's dress code.

Here I have to agree with you. A lawsuit is not the best way to handle this. Step 1. principal does something stupid. Step 2. get pissed off. Step 3. BIG PROFITS. If they wanted something constructive to come out of this, they could try working with the school board to establish some guidelines to prevent this from happening in the future, or turn the thing into education for the kids about being different: have funny hairstyle day, buy them all mohawk wigs or rainbow afro wigs or something, have some of them roll around in wheelchairs all day, whatever it takes to expose them to the concept that different != bad.

Last I'd checked, there was a right to freedom of expression built into the constitution, but not a right to have unremarkable class photos for all kindergarteners. :rolleyes: It's a hairstyle, for pete's sake. Are you going to sue if the kid next to yours is making a funny face?

For kids this age, every moment is a "teachable" moment, and the lessons that are coming out of this situation are not ones I'd want kids to learn:

1. being different is dangerous, undesirable
2. authority can be abused without impunity (ignoring the "he said she said" kerfuffle over whether the parents did or didn't grant permission - assume for the moment they didn't)
3. rewards for good behavior can be yanked away
4. sue when you're pissed off

I agree that some middle ground needs to be found in society between the rights of the individual and the rights of the whole. But is blue hair really the most important battleground where this needs to be fought? It seems to me that allowing individuals to look the way they want is a fairly minor concession, and teaching kids to accept difference (which they're going to encounter everywhere in life) is a lot more important than making sure a school picture has nothing objectionable or remarkable in it. Go back to Stepford if you want conformity.

Re: Re: Re: 6 yr old with Mohawk sparks debate
 

Ah Ha! And now we understand your aversion to mohawks (thanks to the immortal words of the Vandals)

So what would you teach him? - I get what I want - Fuck everyone else.?

I'm all for individuality and personal rights, but the right to swing my arm ends at your nose. <i>That's</i> what's not being taught here by the parents.

I just feel that the cumulative rights of the classmates outweigh the rights of one student. If that makes me a "Stepford conformist whiner," so be it. I've been called worse . . . . . . . .

I wonder if I should have said something because that kid in the 3 grade had a MASSIVE cowlick.

Lurk you are right. Turn it positive to show that people are different and can be different.

These parents should be locked away for trying to teach their child the value of being an individual.

No. I would teach the kid to stand up for what he thinks is right, and to not be intimidated because people don't approve of your appearance, opinions, ethnicity, etc. Again, there are more important things than blue hair to stand up for, but it's a good place to start. And I would teach the other kids that different is not bad.

I guess where we disagree is about the "rights" of the classmates. I don't think it's their right to insist that another person's free expression doesn't offend them, or their aesthetic sensibilities. If this were a high school student wearing an upopular political t-shirt (from whatever side of the political spectrum; and again, assuming that it doesn't violate dress code), would your opinion be different?

The "where my nose begins" argument is all fine and good when it comes to property rights (zoning laws, convenances), health considerations (smoking bans), business practices (environmental regulation), etc., but I'm not willing to let that argument extend into issues of personal expression and "taste" for lack of a better term. I'm surprised that you would be. It's this kind of "offend no-one" thinking that has led to the ridiculous PC culture we live in and that hardly anybody thinks is a good thing.

Anyone who thinks that kids don't have individual personalities has most likely not spent a great deal of time with one. At 18 months, my son has a favorite color, food, and stuffed animal, and can identify and ask for all three clearly with spoken words and gestures.

Actually, the PC culture is the <b>majority</b> bending over backwards to <i>not offend</i> the <b>minority</b>; not the other way around.
The Politically Correct response to this would be, "Oh - let's not punish little Johnny for being pigmentally follicle-challenged - it might hurt his self esteem later in life. Let's just all inconvenience ourselves for his sake."

Besides - this whole argument is pointless - this isn't about a group of six-year olds. They're just the pawns in this power play. It's about a group of 30-something parents; two of whom decided they want to feed at the public trough. It's about a father demanding the right to send his son to school "However the hell I want to and nobody's gonna tell me otherwise."

I'm sure the kids have already forgotten all about it.

Edited at the last minute:
After re-reading the article for about the 4th time - I just noticed that the kid had the haircut for over a month before the whole hair-washing incident took place. In that case, I would say the time for rightful action had long passed. I was under the initial impression that he showed up on picture day with the new 'do.
Under these circumstances, I would say that he had, for thirty days, established "who he was," and washing the dye out of his hair at this late date was an injustice, and shows inconsistencies in shool policy.
But that doesn't change what I already wrote, either. Just puts me a little closer to the fence.

This has all been said already above, but just to chime in...

I'd be pissed if my kids school did something like this w/o permission (which is up for debate in this case.)

Also I must have ruined a bunch of class photos when I was a kid....for being too short. I made the camera man get a shot of everyones knees just to get my face in the shot. - lol

My kids school must be pretty progresive...they have a couple of days a year called "Wild hair day" and students are rewarded for having the wildest hairdo. My kids are trying to convince me to not cut their hair at all all year long just for wild hair day! They want TALL mohawks. funny stuff, and my kids for reference are 8 and 11. So far I have been winning the "lets have regular haircuts" discussions. :-)

Poor kid. He got that as a reward for better behavior. Now he sees what the reward does to him. Fuck that school and fuck the people running it.

The school is fully within its rights to set appearence standards, especially for children that age.

Likewise, the "rights" of the one six-year-old to wear his hair style a certain way do not extend to ruining the school picture for the other children/parents.

If the mother truly consented then I don't see a problem, but from a litigation standpoint, I probably would have sent the kid home or kept him out of the picture.

Besides, he could always put the blue back in it when he got home and AFTER the class picture.

I think a 6 year old with a big blue mohawk is stupid, but it isn't my place to dictate his hair cut, nor was it theirs.

If the mother gave permission, it was only because they said that he couldn't be in the picture with hair like that. The school has a right to set appearance standards, but they don't have a right to change them on some whiny parent's whim.

You're right.

And IMO, the "whiny" ones are the parents that are bitching their kid should have been in the picture with a blue mohawk.

People need to get over themselves and quit being offended by everything. A kid with a blue mohawk isn't going to ruin the class pic.

in your opinion, for some they may think it's disruptive or not as nice looking as their schoolmates picture that doesn't have one.

Maybe some parents will be upset because their kids is next to the fat kid. Maybe some of the kids have really stupid clothes. How far do you want to take it?

It would be nice if we could see where school policy is on this. It wasn't mentioned in the article, was it?

it would be nice, and then people would just attack how stupid rule number 3 is like they are doing with the Liberty University thread.

It doesn't end, you're right with people having to get over it, but at the same time those that want to live "alternatively" have to equally get over it sometimes too.

it's called compromise.

I would just like to point out that I agree 100% with this.

There is no place for a blue fucking mohawk in any school, and it's foolish to think there is a place for it. 99% of us would lose our jobs if we came into work with a blue mohawk. There is a place called the real world, and if you want to succeed you have to conform. Hell, I don't like it, but it's a fact of life, and it doesn't make any of us conformist whiners. The only ones whining here are the people who want kids to look like freaks.

such a diverse set of opinions on this topic. interesting views all the same. In my opinion, what the school did wasn't right, but that is up to the school district and/or courts to decide.
my opinions:
1. A six yr old with a mohawk is bad parenting, why? because you are teaching a child to get attention (negative and positive) with their appearance.

2. schools should have uniforms and dress codes. why? because it's just less disruptive, they are there to learn, not show off their clothes. With uniforms, the lines between the rich kids and the poor kids is less distinguishable. it will help reduce all the hazing and kids picking on other kids because of their clothes.

I'm not a conformist, but i do believe that there is a time and a place for everything. and public schools are not the place for seeking attention through clothing and hairstyles.

anyone who doesn't think that a six yr old wants a mohawk for attention, then you obviously need to pay more attention to children.

I'm confused when it comes to the work/school comparison. They are two very different things. Nobody gets fined for truancy if they don't go to work.

How exactly is a blue mohawk disruptive? How? What the hell is wrong with someone that they can't learn with a mohawk in the room? I want a real explanation, none of this "well, it just is" bullshit.

fines are just a different way of a punishment. you don't show up at your work enough times you get fired.

work and school are very similar, they are modeled as such because it's preparation in entering the work force. i don't have a supporting link at this moment, but I do recall reading it someplace.

note the time structure, work 2 hours, break 15 mins, 2 more hours, break for lunch, work 2 hours, break 15 mins. work 2 hours go home.

as for disruptive, for me in my school it was disruptive because I was mad and upset that someone esle was flaunting the rules. I was concerned with when they were going to get into trouble and if they didn't why did I get into trouble because I wore sneakers. It was a total distraction to me.

I always thought that big tits were disruptive to my learning.

That's where you're misinformed. Freedom of expression applies to adults, not kids, as does the rest of the constitution.

If you want verification of that, note that teens who work are required to file tax returns even though they can't vote - taxation w/o representation.

People don't get fined for truancy if they don't go to work, they fucking get fired!!

It's disruptive because there are kids who will call the kid a fucked up loser freak, and pick on him to no end. I know because I woulda been one of many kids fucking with the idiot. If you want to stand out and look like a freak, expect to get picked on like one. Kids are ruthless, most of us were.

Nobody said you can't learn with a blue mohawk, did they?

Would you still have a job if you went into work with a blue mohawk? I seriously doubt it. School is supposed to prepare kids for the real word/adulthood, isn't it?

I know that it amounts to being preparation for the workforce to a certain degree. I just think that justifying forced conformity based on that reasoning is somewhat foolhardy. There is a difference. I could be complete ass to any of my high school teachers and as long as i did it in the right tone of voice i was untouchable. You can already get away with so much in school that you could never get away with at a job. The two things really don't compare when it comes to certain things. Anyone with half a brain knows that most workplaces won't allow you to have blue mohawk. This is common sense in america. We all learn by inferrence that conformity is one of the most important parts of being a social being long before we get through elementary school. I know that i have to take out my earrings if i want a better chance of having a successful job interview, despite the fact that my school allowed me to wear them. Seriously, how is letting someone in elementary school or high school look different going to effect their job prospects at all?

ummm, they're children? most childrens attention spans are minimal, thanks to popculture and tv, (another thread , another time).

but this is just my experience.

A mohawk will only be disruptive as long as it is percieved as being rebellious or atypical. Give it a week, or a month and see how disruptive it is. If anything by making such a huge deal out of it they are only succeeding in making a huge deal out of it.

Breasts are really disruptive to most any boy over the age of 11. Do those who would deny the right to hairstyle choice based on said hairstyle's distraction potential think we should split schools up by gender just to make sure no one's education is disrupted?

You're right! They get fired, can't get unemployment because it's demonstratably their fuckup, then they run out of money and declare bankruptcy, sometimes become homeless, and often go hungry. School is the place where we teach the children how to behave so that this does not happen to them when they no longer have the safety net of a school.


OK, for one thing, the kid behind him can't see the board anymore.

For another, when's the last time you passed by a guy with neon hair that you didn't look over at him? You really want YOUR kid busy looking at the idiot with the smurf hair when he's supposed to be learning how to read?

For yet another, it teaches the other children that if you want attention, the easiest way is to dress or groom yourself to look like a sideshow. Forget accomplishing something - that's hard. Just dye your hair and do your best imitation of a centurion's helmet and you'll get all the attention you want.

Plus, whether it's disruptive or not, it teaches the kid with the mohawk that it's OK to look like a freak, and if people don't accept you, that's their fault. That's total bullshit. It's just like the people who run around in gothic clothing leading each other around with leashes attached to studded collars around their necks, then wonder why they can't get a job anywhere but a used CD store. These people are idiots. If you want to be accepted in society, you have to conform to societal norms. If you don't care about being accepted, that's great, more power to you, but don't bitch when society doesn't give you a job.

I can tell you here at MTV I sometimes wonder....

there are some people here with blue hair, multiple piercings on face and body, tatoos.

They wonder why they cannot catch a break and get hired for some of the executive positions. I don't find it disruptive in this environment. Heck I have long hair to my waist almost, but when in Rome. I find it very interesting to see people on the elevators in suits standing next to people with all these body modifications.

Well said, shakran. Hats off to you.

Bingo! :thumbsup:

I can understand moonstruck's p.o.v.,
this is a 6 yr. old.
I spike my son's hair when he wants me to, but no mohawk and especially not color!
He's only 6. I would want him to enjoy school and know that school is for learning, not about getting the attention of others. Besides, he is already natural at being the center of attention w/o any eye-catching haristyles or clothes.
Being a teen is different, although I agree with moonstruck- schools would be improved with a dress code. School isn't about what you wear and how you do your hair- it's about learning. If you take away the street clothes and give them uniforms- not just a strict dress code- but actual uniforms, cliques wouldn't be a major development.
I am not on the parents' side, nor the principal's side- I feel sorry for the kid who had to deal with this.

And you think allowing children to dress like individuals in school will facilitate what you describe? Whatever. Like i said, anyone with half a brain knows that they have to jump through many hoops to get a job. One of which is to look how your employer expects you to look. In school, you don't have to worry so much about your appearances and i think that's good. I think your proposed connection between how one dresses in school and how one dresses in the workplace is silly. They are two different things. I dressed like a dirty little fuck in school. That doesn't mean in don't know how to dress for a job interview. Like i said, silly.


Irrelevant, unless we segregate the tall kids too. Might as well, seeing as how their heads are probably disruptive.

Do you honestly think that every other kid in this 6 year old's class has led such a sheltered existence that they could do nothing but stare at a freaking mohawk all day? I could understand looking at it for a minute or two, but shit, even breasts get old to look at when you're constantly exposed to them.

Who are you to pretend to know what kids are learning from this? We could sit here all day and hypothesize as to what the children learn from a kid with a mohawk. That still won't make biased speculation a valid prop for an argument.

Wow. Honestly. Freak? hmm. How is it bullshit? Break it down for me. I was always taught that, as americans, our differences are part of what makes us strong. I guess i was wrong. Apparently, the key to being a good person is to go along with whatever the majority is doing, you know, don't rock the boat. I guess if it worked for you...

I'm not really certain where you're coming from here, but i'm pretty certain the responsibility to accept or reject people does, in fact, lie within each individual person. If someone chooses to not accept someone with "weird" hair, it is their choice(or, fault, in your terms). To be sure, a lot of people don't really take the time to evaluate whether society is doing a good job of deciding who looks "right" and who looks "wrong". That's fine, that's your right as an american. Just don't pretend that being an ethnocentrist isn't a choice.

How did we get from a six year old with a mohawk to the hypothetical "you" bitching about not being able to find work? What are we really talking about here?

You're right though, no amount of individuality will change the fact that the majority of americans are afraid of and misunderstand people who are different from them. It is interesting to see you say such things though. From reading some of your other posts i thought you were a big advocate of rewarding people based on abilities rather than appearances.

Let me ask you this. Do you think it is fair that we are all expected to conform to various folkways which, despite being completely arbitrary, can ultimately decide whether we sink or float? Do you think that it is acceptable for the more qualified candidate to not get the job because his hairstyle was unconventional or because his earrings were too big? Why? What's the point?

It seems obvious to me that this isn't really about a six year old. This is about you ranting against every other goth kid who ever made you feel uncomfortable. I have some advice for you and timalkin and sixate. The next time you see someone who looks different, be it a mohawk or piercings or whatever, and you start to feel the righteous indignation/scorn rising up inside of you like an ulcer, just ask youself a simple question: Why the hell do i give a damn about how this person chooses to look? Why is it so important for me to feel like i am better than this person?

It certainly can. After all if they won't carry what they learn in school to their job, then why do we have them in school?






You're right. That's why kids can wear jeans and a Tshirt to school.

Lemme ask you this. Your kid comes home and says Billy wore a Tshirt that said "fuck you" on it. Do you think that's an appropriate thing for the kid to be wearing? Why not? It won't distract anyone, it won't teach anyone anything, it won't influence anyone. Why not let 'em wear it? While we're at it, let's let them wear pants with a penis painted onto the crotch. Same arguments apply. If you claim nothing the kid can wear can influence, distract, disrupt, or teach bad lessons, then why not let the kids wear literally ANYTHING?








That reason was a bit of tongue in cheek humor. I'm sorry that you did not perceive that.


Oh please dude. Little kids will stare at a speck of dust when they're bored in a classroom. Do you honestly think a blue mohawk WON'T attract attention?

Not to a kid they don't. And neither will the mohawk because normal parents will refuse to let their kids get one, so it has that tinge of "forbidden fruit." Makes it much more attention grabbing.

a double major in journalism and child psychology. Who are YOU to pretend to know what they are NOT learning?

and if you interpreted that concept to mean "I should grow a big blue mohawk to strengthen our counrty" then you're beyond hope in this argument.

No, that's the key to being an accepted person. If you want to rock the boat, that's great and I wish you all the luck in the world. Don't complain when people reject you, however, because you should know going in that that will happen.



Which goes back to my point about the goths trying to get a job. Sure, it's the fault of the interviewer that he's not open minded enough to accept someone with fake blood dripping from their eyes, but it's the fault of the goth for being a big enough dumbass to actually think people would accept that in a job interview.
If you want to be a nonconformist, you can't be surprised when people don't accept it. What YOU want is your cake and eat it too. You want to do whatever you feel like doing and NO ONE is allowed to form a negative opinion on it. That's simply not living in the real world.

And you are correct - I am. However I'm also a realist who realizes that if you want to get along in this world without constantly fighting, then you gotta conform. Whether you want to do that is up to you.


No, I don't. I also don't think it's fair that you get sunburn from the sun. But it happens and if I want to go through life without feeling pain, I don't go in the sun too much. If I want to go through life without being a reject, I don't dress like one.


Yes I do and I'll tell you why. If I'm hiring people for my company, I'm looking for the smartest people I can get to fill that position. Now, smart people know that crazy hair and body piercings aren't widely accepted in a business environment. Therefore, if an applicant shows up in my office wearing that crap, I can safely assume he is a moron. I don't hire morons.


Wow. That interpretation shows an amazing lack of perception. You couldn't be more wrong.

OK, and I have some advice for you. The next time you encounter a realist like Sixate, Timalkin, or myself, before you succumb to that kneejerk reaction that we just hate everyone who isn't white and cleancut, try to correctly interpret what we're saying rather than assuming we're just a bunch of old intolerant farts, eh?

I was going to comment more on the concept that being an "individual" is ok, even while pissing on other peoples rights, but shakran and sixate are doing fine.

But I will say that comparing standing next to a fat kid in a school pic with standing next to a kid with a blue mohawk is ludicrous.

i think people make way too big a deal over physical appearances today..

If you don't see a difference between a tall person, and a giant blue mohawk in a classroom, there's no reason to discuss this any further. Tall is normal, giant blue mohawks are not, and to say they are is ridiculous.


Yes, hell, I'd stare and make fun of a dude with a blue mohawk all day and wonder why the hell he'd want to look like a freak. So I'm sure kids would make fun of him, too. Go ahead and say I'm immature. It doesn't really matter to me. I'm just being honest.

Lastly, I'll never get tired of looking at breats.

You honestly think allowing children to dress how they want in school will damage their job prospects later in life? Really?

Because having a mohawk is no different from a shirt that says fuck or a penis drawn on a pair of pants? Nice comparison. I'm surprised you didn't bring up something about a kkk shirt(which you'd no doubt support since malcolm x shirts are okay). I agree that there is a line, i just put it in a different place than you.


I saw it, it just wasn't really that humorous.

So what's the problem? You admit that a dust can be just as distracting as a mohawk. Perhaps we should be more concerned with making sure that chidren don't get bored in class than whether tommy is fascinated by timmy's hair.

Forbidden fruit is appealing because it is forbidden. Make it not forbidden and no one will care.

Score. George bush has an mba from the ivy leaagues. He's got a great;) reputation as a businessman.

I was just trying to point out that we could speculate for hours about what the kids are learning from this. This will not change the fact that we don't have all the details and are in no position to pretend to have a complete picture of what the children will take away from this situation. A real scientist will acknowledge when he doesn't have all of the facts and is only making vague educated guesses.


Let me introduce you to the idea of diversity as a vital factor in the strength of a community. More perspectives are often better than less perspectives. Surely that's not a foreign concept to you. Take your journalism major and do an article on biodiversity. If you don't see a connection than you might be beyond hope too.

I'm not complaining about rejection. Like i may have implied above, i try not to waste my time with people who are wowed by a mohawk or a black ensemble. They generally aren't very stimulating.

How are we still talking about getting a job? Hello? Remember when i agreed with you that you have to look presentable to get a job? I said something about anyone with half a brain knows that they have to look nice to get most any kind of job. My point is that letting this child have a mohawk won't damage his future ability to get a job. Prove to me that it will without using a slippery slope argument and without making questionable jumps in logic.


Of course you have to conform. What we are talking about here is the degree to which someone should conform. I presume that you don't believe in absolute conformity. I hope you can see that there are different degrees of conformity as well as different kinds. I hope you can see the value of nonconformity in that it has been a vital component in many of humanity's greates achievements. This isn't really relevant to appearance. I just wanted to point out that if the world were left to realists, like you claim to be, we'd still be in the middle ages hanging off of the pope's nuts.


What does sunburn have to do with this? You are aware that sunburn isn't the result of closedmindedness, right? You're problem is that you're afraid of being a reject. You seem to put so much value in the opinions of others that you can't bear the idea of having to carry the weight of someone else's disdain. At least, that's how you're coming across. Perhaps not, but that is what i gather from your desire to not be a reject.

What if they dress alternatively when they are not working? Like i said above and before, anybody with half a brain knows that you have to dress conservative to get most jobs so, while i agree with your perspective on this one point, i don't really think it is relevant.

I guess i just mistook your choice of loaded words and negative generalizations when refering to those different from you. You were just coming across like you had a big chip on your shoulder when it comes to gothkids. Sorry for reading between the lines. Perhaps in the future you could avoid using loaded words like "freak" "reject" or resorting to mischaracterizations like and maybe you won't come across so bitter.



What do you expect me to do based on your passionate pleas for conformity. I never said anything about white and/or clean cut. That's you projecting. Perhaps we could both benefit from trying to correctly interpreting one another. Also, perhaps we could benefit from communicating using neutral language so as not to stir passions any more than they need to be.


btw sixate readily admits that he is an intolerant old fart(see quote below).


I see a difference in that one is a choice and the other is not. unfortunately we aren't talking about choices we are talking about getting rid of things that disrupt the learning of others.;) (Don't take it seriously.)


I'm not sure if you know this sixate, but there is a difference between being honest and being an asshole. I'm not saying you're an asshole, just that you should know that there is a difference and shrugging your shoulders with a "i was just being honest" doesn't mean that you're not being an asshole.

Yep. Because you're not teaching them that there's a time and place where wild appearances is appropriate, and there are times and places where those appearances are not.



Excuse me? You start out by making a bullshit argument and finish up by saying I support the wearing of kkk shirts? How the hell did that happen. Do you know what logic is? Can you apply it? READ THE POST in its entirety and COMPREHEND it before you go shooting off your mouth. It'll save you from looking foolish.



Tell me how to force every parent of every child in that school to allow their kid to get a blue mohawk and we can talk. Otherwise, quit with the sweeping grandiose ideas that have no chance in hell of succeeding in the real world.

Your point? You still haven't listed any qualifications that YOU have to comment on what can and can not effect a child's development. At least I have the sheepskin. What do you have?


Are you claiming to be a real scientist? What is your degree in? How many child psychology classes have you taken? How many sessions have you had with children? How many times have you observed the group dynamic of an elementary classroom?

You have absolutely no basis in fact to say that the kid will not be distracted, yet you claimed above that he would not. And you want to talk to me about vague generalizations?


OK, you really need to learn what diversity is. It's differences between cultures, not hairstyles. Let's ground our arguments in reason, shall we?

And as I said, if you want to wear a mohawk, that's great. Don't bitch when others think you're bizarre.


Because letting him have a mohawk, or pierce his nose, or get 7 piercings in his ear, or lip, or navel, or nipples, or letting him lead his girlfriend around school on a leash (i've seen that, btw) is teaching him the attitude that he should look however he wants to look, and fuck society if society doesn't approve. That's all well and good, but when he takes that fuck society attitude into the interview, it's gonna shine through like a spotlight.

Looking respectable in school is not asking too much in the way of conformity. Mohawks are not a vital component of humanity's greatest achievements. I would be willing to wager that at no time in history has a mohawk been responsible for any achievement, great or small.


and if the world were left to people who felt they should be able to do whatever they want, look like whatever they want, say whatever they want, we'd have long ago descended into total anarchy and wouldn't have even reached the technology of the middle ages.




Until you demonstrate that you are qualified, please stop analyzing me, because frankly you're not very good at it. I am not afraid of being a reject. I am realistic enough to know that if I do certain things society might not like it. In other words, I'm smart enough to realize that my actions have consequences. Too many people are utterly shocked when society doesn't like the 10 rings in their lip. These people are idiots. That's my entire point.

Try rereading my post if you're still confused about the sunburn bit.

When I'm in a job interview, where I'm asking that someone else to hire me, you're damn right I put value in his opinion. Only an idiot would not.

Wrong again. Listen, I said if the kid wants a mohawk in the summer, that's fine. He's not expected to be a member of a classroom. When he IS expected to be a member of the classroom, he should also be expected to act like one. Mohawks, like penis paintings and fuck you shirts, are not appropriate in school. If you think that what you wear cannot influence a child, then I assume YOU are OK with people wearing a KKK shirt to school.


I really don't think you're reading my posts in their entirety. Or if you are, you are failing utterly to comprehend them. Your arguments are consistantly not based on what I said.


No, I wasn't. I was coming across as someone who did not understand why "gothkids" are so surprised when people have a negative reaction to what they are doing. If they want to be goth, that's fine, but they need to understand that not everyone is going to like it.

Perhaps in the future, before reading between the lines, you could actually read the lines themselves. I think that would help you understand what it is that I am saying.


What would be the fun in that? ;)

Since i've apparently misinterpreted everything that you have said why don't you tell me what your point is again?

I guess i just disagree with you that allowing a child to have a mohawk will somehow damage anybody. Despite having dyed hair in school and being a reject i know all this and, so far, it has not effected my employment opportunities in any way that i cannot live with. I don't need a degree to tell me that it doesn't really matter because i am living proof.

I'm not sure where you're hearing all of these gothkids complaining about not being accepted by society. I have heard people complain about the superficiality of society because they ended up on the wrong side of conformity. It's not "Why won't they accept me?" It's more like "Why can't they see that i'm just like them except for my hairstyle/jewelry/manner of dress?" Intelligent people know when they are making choices that will probably result in bearing the scorn of the conformists. I know my piercings will harm my job prospects at many places and i accept that. I also know that i will do what i have to do to earn the money that i need to survive here including taking them out. I don't, however, accept for a moment that it is fair or rational to place as much importance on appearance as our society does. The only way a piercing effects my ability to do a job is if the people i work with and/or the customers can't accept it. That's wrong and pandering to it will only encourage it.

It's a 6 year old kid with a mohawk? Who cares?

It's all in fun, the kid likes it, the parents think it's cute. He has NO right to touch any child that's not his own, being his hair, shoes, whatever.

You know, they said that about women voting at one time.

And 'coloured' people riding on busses.

And about being gay.

Perhaps some people here are just too close minded.

to those of you arguing over if a shirt is distracting or not, let me interject something. Whatever you may think is "okay" in your book and "no I didn't mean KKK where did you get that?"

If it said, "Nazis kill Jews Dead" or "AIDS kills fags dead" would also have to fit under your tshirt freedoms.

Obviously your common sense kicks in suddenly and you say,"No that's wrong!" but sorry it also has to be right.

All of the things you just listed are just normal people, not a giant freaky blue stupid mohawk that does nothing other than say: Look at me. I like to be a fucking attention whore because I'm a moron.

If you can't see a difference then we really don't have anything to discuss now do we?

So a six year old is a moron?

I was once a 16 year old with a mohawk. What does that make me?

based on what he's written I'd extract that in his opinion a '16 year old "Look at me. I like to be a fucking attention whore because I'm a moron."'

EDIT:
I was just thinking about this and noted...

There's not many parents on this thread. Most of the people discussing passionately here don't have kids and/aren't planning on them.

IMO Proof is in the pudding. Those that have kids that have done such things, we'll see where they are in a number of years. For some it's a fad, passing fancy. Others it becomes a lifestlye.

The six year old is a moron because the parents made him one.

You have my opinion already... Blue mohawks are stupid. Period.

I'm not sure how t-shirts became a part of the discussion, but i agree with you. Let me just say though that i have never seen a mohawk that contained a message of bigotry.

I can see the difference, but i am also aware that there are really an infinite number of ways for people to try to get attention, including wearing your sobriety and your atheism on your sleeve and proclaiming it from the rooftops. Being an attention whore doesn't make you a moron, it makes you an at least moderately insecure human being. If we were going to attempt to outlaw any activity or appearance that is a direct result of attention whoring than we'd have a pretty fucking boring world. You're just trying to protect the normal channels for attention whoredom(wearing expensive clothes or driving an expensive car) denying someone who goes about it in a different way(getting a mohawk).

i have always said that what you think is right/wrong, normal/strange all changes the minute you have a child.

it's good that non-parents feel compelled to advocate for children, but parenting is all about choices. and it is always going to be up to the parent to choose what is best for their child.

I can't advocate for a child, but i can advocate for what i think i would have benefitted from as a child. I can also claim that knuckling under to the superficial whims of popular culture isn't a good way to teach a child to be true to him/herself.

the irony... just too painfull....

Oh God....

An American school... telling a child... that he cannot have his hair styled in the way which American people have traditionally done for 1,000 years....

Calling a Indian style of wearing hair a "punk" hairstyle...

Oh God... too much irony...

Honestly, physical appearance is just a distraction. I still feel that way. In the end we'll all make lovely tombs so I let people enjoy their Blue Mohawks while they can.


However if you insist on judging people by their choice of appearance:

http://www.liquidtheater.com/review_images/326.jpg
Why don't they just get normal haircuts?

Then what the HELL have we been arguing about? Letting the kid get a mohawk is knuckling under to the superficial whims of popular culture.

Uhh. Please tell me you're joking. I've never heard of a traditional Indian dying his hair with kool-aid.

We must be thinking of different popular cultures. I was thinking about pop culture in terms of the culture of the majority, which, if this story is any indication, is decidedly anti-mohawk. If mohawks were a force of popular culture then they'd be more, well, popular.


The superficial whims of popular culture that i referred to are the ones that set the arbitrary guidelines about what are and aren't acceptable styles and behaviors for the masses.

Wow, punk rock at the age of six, eh ? That just goes to say something about the state of punk I surpose.

Anyhow, they should've left the kid alone imho.

It was for good behavior. That's stupid.

Leave him alone. He's not a problem child. He's not hurting anyone," Levey Padocs Sr. said. "He's an individual, and that's how he's expressing his individuality."

That kid has good parents..FUck teh system and their rules of conformity. The american school system strives to makes its youth a mindless robot and a conformist to society...for the most part....bah i say!

Stupid americans. Let the kid express himself anyway he wants, I mean honestly he's six years old. When I was six I was picking my nose and watching the flinstones. If he wants to wear his hair a certain way, then who the fuck cares.

it's a doo, let him do what he wants to dew

1. We're talking about a kid- not you, not an adult of any kind, not someone applying for a job, not anything other than a kid being a fucking kid. There are plenty of things one can do while still understanding "how things are". This kid can blue mohawk himself all he wants while still understanding the implications of wearing/keeping it.



My personal opinion is that "slippery slope" arguments are some of the most unfounded, nonsensical, bullshit filler arguments I ever read during the course of debate. There is nothing to found them on, nothing with which to support them, and are pure fabrications based on personal agenda.

Quote:

For another, when's the last time you passed by a guy with neon hair that you didn't look over at him? You really want YOUR kid busy looking at the idiot with the smurf hair when he's supposed to be learning how to read?

Novelty quickly wears off, nullifying this point- most especially in those who lack long attention spans- like kids.

Quote:

For yet another, it teaches the other children that if you want attention, the easiest way is to dress or groom yourself to look like a sideshow. Forget accomplishing something - that's hard. Just dye your hair and do your best imitation of a centurion's helmet and you'll get all the attention you want.

I don't find any evidence to support the argument that the child in this instance wanted a mohawk just to be noticed. This is speculative at best, and only showcases your own (low) opinion of the subject without addressing the matter more directly (i.e., societal demands placed on young children, responsibility of parents, etc.).

Quote:

Plus, whether it's disruptive or not, it teaches the kid with the mohawk that it's OK to look like a freak, and if people don't accept you, that's their fault. That's total bullshit. It's just like the people who run around in gothic clothing leading each other around with leashes attached to studded collars around their necks, then wonder why they can't get a job anywhere but a used CD store. These people are idiots. If you want to be accepted in society, you have to conform to societal norms. If you don't care about being accepted, that's great, more power to you, but don't bitch when society doesn't give you a job.

Highlight 1: If you don't like me because of how I dress, then that IS your fault- and it's also your tough luck. According to what you (several of you) say, you would treat me like scum if you saw me walking down the street and think nothing of me. To those who know me, the clothing belies my demeanor, my goals, my faith, my personality, and my ability to know when to dress apropriately.

Highlight 2: These people to whom you refer and who you use to typify the sub-culture you are bashing by calling them "freaks" have NO illusions as to why they find it difficult to further themselves in society. They know quite well that people in general can be dickheads and won't be more accepting of what they see around them. Need I remind you all that women were second-rate citizens for all history until recently, and people of different races are still being mistreated, looked over, harassed, and killed simply for being a different color?

Call people "freaks" and exclude them if you wish, but don't think that makes you Mr. or Ms. Perfect 2004. If many people believe a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing.

That's your opinion, and insulting.

Come down to the south in the right areas and run your mouth about gays being "normal people". While you're at it, add soemthing about how great black people are, they'll love you for that.

People like to forget that the normal of today was very often extremely taboo yesterday.

In the last 100 years:

1. Slavery was normal. Very normal. Sidenote: Many of the "Framers" of the constitution some of you like to historically suck-off on a regular basis had them.

2. Women couldn't vote. In fact, they had little to no rights whatsoever- including owning property. Beating a woman meant she deserved it, and was also quite common.

...and those two are just off the top of my head.

Goth, punk, raver, "normal", gay, black, white, purple, Man, Woman, Child... we're all human beings. Some of us, regardless of cultural affiliation, will be stupid, misguided, assholes, aloof, indifferent, rude, brash, weak, powerful, attention whores who bash those different than themselves just to be seen, attention whores who change their hair color and pierce/tattoo themselves 50 times, and just plain old common jerk-offs. Just because "some" are, doesn't mean "all" are. What a horrid way to stereotype people.

WTF.
stay on topic please.:)

Astounding. The pro-mohawk side spends the entire thread talking about how a 6 year old can't possibly be self-aware enough to get any long-term implications on the appropriateness of hairstyles, then you step forward and say he can understand implications of wearing a mohawk. Which is it?





Your personal opinion eh? care to say what you founded that on, what you support it with, and why that's not a pure fabrication based on personal agenda?

Besides, it's not a slippery slope argument. Learn what slippery slope means before you go randomly labelling arguments with it.




Simple. If someone doesn't care about being noticed for their looks, they don't do anything special with their appearance. You wear earrings because you want people to see them. You wear a necktie because you want people to see it on you. Same thing goes for a mohawk.




Again, you're astoundingly wrong. If you are asking me for a job, and I don't like your mohawk, that's YOUR tough luck because I will NOT be hiring you.

Wrong again. This is becoming a trend. I personally don't give a crap what you do with your appearance. I DO get annoyed when you alter your appearance to one which the majority of society does not accept, then bitch and moan when society doesn't accept it. You should have known that before you altered your appearance, and I frankly have no sympathy for you if you do it anyway and people don't like it.


I don't know you. I also don't care how you dress.

Oh really? Then why do I hear so much confused bitching from them that "society doesn't accept me!" They KNEW that when they did whatever it is that society doesn't accept!



Big difference. You're born with your skin color, and you're born with your gender. You're not born with a mohawk.



I'm not excluding them from anything. I'm saying that if they want to dress that way, and then they get excluded, they should have expected it. If they want to be included, they should try harder to fit into mainstream society. If they don't care about being included, then they can dress however they want.





You, sir, are full of shit on this argument. I note with interest that you pick on southerners for being racist against black people. Isn't that a prejudicial statement? I've lived in the south and the north, and southerners are no more racist than the northerners. Plus the fact that this statement, in addition to being a load of crap, has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument at hand. Being black is not the same as having a blue mohawk. If you cannot see the difference, then it's pointless to debate with you further.

And when mohawks become mainstream, then it will be OK for people to wear them to their jobs and to the classroom. Until that day comes, however, they're not appropriate for those places.

It was? Really? I had no idea that we still had slaves in 1904. I thought slavery ended with the civil war, in 1865. The fact that you clearly don't know history (or math, one of the two) aside, slavery involved a violation of human rights. Would you care to tell me how many times Amnesty International has fought to allow schoolchildren to wear mohawks to school?

Well at least you have the 100 years right here. Again, this is a human rights issue, not a fashion issue. Don't confuse the two. And by the way, women are still oppressed the world over. Many african women have their genitals mutilated (obviously, not by choice) when they reach puberty. Don't you think this is more important to fight against than the idea that a little kid shouldn't wear a mohawk to school?


He says, as he proceeds to stereotype everyone on the opposite side of this argument, and throws in southerners while he's at it. You're not even consistant with your views across one single post. If stereotyping is wrong, then it's wrong in all applications. It's not right only when YOU do it. . .

you guys gotta keep it civil. even the moderators participating in this debate need to do so.

I'll say it one more time those of you debating heatedly.

You don't have kids. You have opinions. When you have kids your opinion may or may not change, but you do have something more than just an opinion, you have the responsibility of another human being. With that in mind, remember you don't have that responsibility now.

There's no need to get so upset or uptight about such a philisophical argument as to how to raise children.

Cynthetiq, with all due respect, I don't think you can dismiss out of hand the opinions of those without children just because they don't have kids. Having a baby does not automatically endow you with the wisdom to see this issue properly, while leaving all the childfree people in the dark.

I've been thinking about the "I dress the way I like, and if society doesn't like it, screw them" argument. What if I were to wander around downtown buck naked? Does the same argument apply?

I mean, gee, I want to be naked. If society can't accept that, it's THEIR fault, right?

No that's not what I'm saying at all, but the heated arguements are only just that of opinion and could not be tested out at all.

If a person comes to give you advice about cars and has no experience with cars do you take their advice?

They may have theoretical experience from reading and seeing, but they don't have practical knowledge.

that's what my point is.

If the kid got this hairdo a month ago as stated then the school should have dealt with it then. "Levey Padocs Jr.'s father said he allowed his son to get the distinctive 'do more than a month ago for behaving better in class."

If they accepted it then they shouldn't have taken issue with it the day of the photo. I really doubt that they got permission to wash the dye out - they would have had to ask for the permission the day of the photos. They could have just as easily asked the parents the day before to wash it out for the photo and he could return to his usual style the next day. If they had a issue with it then the school could have cleared this whole charade up long before it got to this point.

I don't really care if one of my daughter's classmates has funky hair. She is barely 4 yet and does have a distinct individual taste in her dress and looks already.

My daughter will not wear or dress in the extremes though. She will be allowed to follow her own tastes within certain limits. If she wants to color her hair she may with natural colors. Once she's an adult she can play with more funky things if she so chooses. Also she may wear clothes that follow the fashions but nothing extremely exposing or gaudy or gang representive of course. This will be my personal parenting style.

These parents may have just allowed something that they wouldn't normally because of the boys behavior. I think colored hair is minor compared to the bad behavior that some kids display in class. I would rather him learn than look they way most people see as normal.

The school could have handled this much better. They did not. The parents are justified in what they are doing though I think they might be going a tad overboard. My kid would not be attending that school again if I wear in their place.