The politics of black women’s hair: Why it’s seen with skepticism — and a need to discipline

[ismnotwasm]

But there is a long history of institutions regulating bodies in such a way that white bodies become the norm. In the case of the Army, they outrageously suggest that “Braids or cornrows that are unkempt or matted are considered dreadlocks and are not authorized.”

Though racial references are never used, these kinds of regulations are surely raced. The idea that “dreadlocks” or “loc(k)s” which is the more politically correct term, are merely matted hair is offensive, culturally ignorant and racist. There are far too many certified loctitians who take great care in choosing healthy grooming products for their robust clientele for people to continue to believe that locs are unclean and ungroomed.

Moreover, forcing members of the military to chemically or manually straighten their hair is a violation of black women’s bodily autonomy and right not to be exposed to harmful chemicals.

There is some evidence linking the chemicals in relaxers to increased risk of fibroids among black women. And the fact that these same chemicals can eat through a soda can in a matter of a few days — as evidenced in an experiment in Chris Rock’s “Good Hair” documentary — suggests that black women have every right to be wary of using these kinds of products.

However, there is something that is fundamentally problematic about deeming black women’s hair in its natural state to be unkempt. No other group of women is required by default to use chemicals to tame their hair or to pay money for expensive weaves, exploitatively culled from the hair of South Asian women. They may be required to keep it at a certain length, to keep it clean and combed, and maybe not to dye it. But that is it. Those are reasonable regulations in a military industrial complex that functions through complete disciplinary control over the body.

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/22/the_politics_of_my_black_hair_why_its_seen_with_skepticism_and_a_need_to_discipline/