Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do older women get their haircut short when that exposes their necks and necks show age? And is it because their hair gets thin, they think it makes them look better, or they want less hassle of washing it?

How are you defining “older women”?

Why do I care if my aging neck is exposed? Do you consider it indecent?

I’m in my 50s, and my hair is halfway down my back. It is thick and frizzy, so twisted into a bun every day. Short hair is a nuisance to deal with. A neighbor/family friend wore a bun well into her 80s when her arthritis made it too painful, and I always admired her style.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My theory is that American hairdressers are lousy and cutting short hair. It takes more skill than cutting longer hair because each cut needs to be custom to the head shape and hair of the person. They've also only ever seen the awful cuts that are ubiquitous on older American women, so I that's what they do. I agree that it's often a terrible look, but I don't think the solution is going long.

I had an amazing pixie cut when I was living in France, but never could get it replicated in the US, even with photos of the original. Now I have a wavy French bob, which is harder for hairdressers to butcher to cut than a pixie. I do think short hair can look super chic. I just think it's really hard to find an American hairdresser with that skill set. By contrast, I saw beautiful and flattering short haircuts all over France.

It's not the hair stylists... it's the person. Most people don't have the bone structure to pull off short hair. You need a more compact face, a smaller nose, strong cheekbones, etc.

You'd be surprised how skilled stylists can match a modern looking short haircut to a face. The cuts can be striking.

What kind of short haircut flatters a woman with more masculine facial features? I'm assuming we mean actually short here (not bobs).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am 58. My hair is naturally wavy and I still have a lot of it. I straighten it about half the time. Barring a major health issue, I have no plans to cut my hair short enough that I can’t pull it up. Even my hairdresser says short hair would be way more work for me based on my hair type.

I don’t wear it as long as I did in my 20s and 30s but that’s a personal preference, not pressure to follow an unwritten rule about long hair on older women. I keep it around my shoulders or just below these days.

+1
This describes me too. I almost always wear my hair in a ponytail, so it has to be at least long enough to pull it back. I do think it would be more work if I had shorter hair that couldn't be pulled into a ponytail. It would have to be styled every day and I'm not up for it.

Dp. It is not 'more work' to have short hair! Since when did having less of something take more time?

I don't care what you do with your hair..no judgement but I have short hair and do not style it every day! That is very funny!!

My hair has its own personality with a lot of cowlicks. When long, the weight of the hair keeps it presentable right from when I wake up. Short, some of my hair goes one way, the rest is straight. I use a round brush to get my cowlicks to heel with a hair dryer. So...longer time styling.

See how that works when you don't assume everyone is the same as you.
NP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am 58. My hair is naturally wavy and I still have a lot of it. I straighten it about half the time. Barring a major health issue, I have no plans to cut my hair short enough that I can’t pull it up. Even my hairdresser says short hair would be way more work for me based on my hair type.

I don’t wear it as long as I did in my 20s and 30s but that’s a personal preference, not pressure to follow an unwritten rule about long hair on older women. I keep it around my shoulders or just below these days.

+1
This describes me too. I almost always wear my hair in a ponytail, so it has to be at least long enough to pull it back. I do think it would be more work if I had shorter hair that couldn't be pulled into a ponytail. It would have to be styled every day and I'm not up for it.

Dp. It is not 'more work' to have short hair! Since when did having less of something take more time?

I don't care what you do with your hair..no judgement but I have short hair and do not style it every day! That is very funny!!

Depending on what type of natural waves or curl your hair has, and how much hair you have, it absolutely can be tons of work if it’s short and require lots of product so that it doesn’t look like a rumpled mess. If I cut my hair shorter than a certain point it looks a disaster if I don’t spend time on it every day.

Some people can wear short hair with ease and props to them. But some of us can’t.

Not more than long hair and you can't convince me. So don't try. If you have curls or weaves or whatever longer hair will still be more work.

I’m glad you know more about my own hair than I do and you also know more than every hairdresser I’ve ever been to. Congrats to you. I’ll still never have short hair because even though you don’t believe it, it is in fact more work. Enjoy your short hair.

Anonymous wrote:I used to never understand either, but as I’m getting more grey hairs, MAN they are wiry, untameable, and awful! And the longer my hair is, the more they stand out in a grizzled, crumpled, terrible way. I’m tempted to chop it off to at least a long bob or whatever, but can’t get around the fact that for decades the best thing for my crazy hair was an astronomically expensive and wonderful haircut I would travel for, and then just wash-n-wear. Bobs and lobs seem to require a lot more effort and maintenance

Anonymous wrote:Because even long hair doesn't cover your neck. The front of the neck is where age shows. Your long hair wont hide that.

Anonymous wrote:No idea. My Mother always called women who did that "Q-tips."

With quality wigs readily available and affordable, there is no reason except for ignorance and personal choice that a woman cannot have attractive hair as she ages.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My theory is that American hairdressers are lousy and cutting short hair. It takes more skill than cutting longer hair because each cut needs to be custom to the head shape and hair of the person. They've also only ever seen the awful cuts that are ubiquitous on older American women, so I that's what they do. I agree that it's often a terrible look, but I don't think the solution is going long.

I had an amazing pixie cut when I was living in France, but never could get it replicated in the US, even with photos of the original. Now I have a wavy French bob, which is harder for hairdressers to butcher to cut than a pixie. I do think short hair can look super chic. I just think it's really hard to find an American hairdresser with that skill set. By contrast, I saw beautiful and flattering short haircuts all over France.

It's not the hair stylists... it's the person. Most people don't have the bone structure to pull off short hair. You need a more compact face, a smaller nose, strong cheekbones, etc.

You'd be surprised how skilled stylists can match a modern looking short haircut to a face. The cuts can be striking.

Anonymous wrote:No idea. My Mother always called women who did that "Q-tips."

With quality wigs readily available and affordable, there is no reason except for ignorance and personal choice that a woman cannot have attractive hair as she ages.