The ethics of hair extensions

meeeeh

Candie wrote: »

I don't know if I agree with the part I bolded.

I think any inroad you make in your life that minimises the exploitation of another is a good thing. If you don't get hair extensions and still shop in Penny's its got to be better than shopping in Penny's while wearing hair extensions

Even just choosing fairtrade coffee or tea helps improve the lives of the poorest people in the world. To borrow a line from Tesco, every little helps.



Edit: Princess Peach said it first, and more succinctly.

I agree with the above. I just think it's hard to give out about people who use the hair extensions then. It's good to encourage and educate people not to use them but it is a bit two faced to judge them, if that makes sense.

Princess Peach

I don't mean to sound judgemental, I really am not judging anyone. Just trying to inform people of something they may not be aware of. Perhaps their choice may be different if they had more facts about the products they buy.

meeeeh

TobyRyan wrote: »

If people are that desperate for human hair there is a vast room of it in Auswitch.

Western Ideology is the root of the problem. As long as it isn't Women in Western countries then no one actually cares.

Oh goody it only took only about 30 posts before somebody proved Goodwin.

I don't think you sound judgemental. The problem is when you feel strongly about something and try to raise awareness, there's always someone who'd going to get defensive, as Lia_Lia described in her post above.

username123

Candie wrote: »

I think any inroad you make in your life that minimises the exploitation of another is a good thing. If you don't get hair extensions and still shop in Penny's its got to be better than shopping in Penny's while wearing hair extensions

I agree. Its not an all or nothing situation. There would be very few of us who dont do or buy something that has questionable ethics behind it. If you can make small good choices then its better than not making them.

Legs.Eleven

meeeeh wrote: »

A bit of overreaction here on all sides imo. But I do agree that in the centre of the problem is the desire to have something for next to nothing. 5 Euro t shirt in Penny's has to cover profit, shop overheads, transport costs, tax, insurance, advertising and cost of production and material. Even if there is no abuse it's clear it can't be produced in any other way than with paying extremely low wages. We would have to live in a lot more sustainable way to minimise exploitation of people in third world, hair extensions is just one part of a story. But there is no point in giving out about those people who use hair extensions and at the same time shop in Penny's or basically anywhere in the high street.

I see what you're saying alright and it's argued that when it comes to exploitation of labour in the 3rd world, it has to be all or nothing. It's viewed as hypocritical and I understand that argument but I do try and that's better than nothing, I think.

It seems like even in the more pricier shops produce their clothes in poor countries, even some of the very high-end brands. With a very limited budget, my options are limited. I have to dress myself but I just try to consume less and not buy stuff that'll be out of fashion next month, so I'm still wearing clothes from 5 years ago as a result. I think unless you're well-off, all you can do is limit your consumption and avoid things like hair extensions that aren't at all necessary whereas a pair of runners, for example, might be something you "need" and an affordable, more ethically produced pair might be hard to come by.

Surely it's better to limit the consumption of this stuff to limit the demand and in turn, limit production and exploitative labour than to have an "all or nothing" approach?

meeeeh

I didn't advocate all or nothing approach. As I said I don't like hair extensions and I do shop for cheaper clothing. I'm not making a moral decision about hair extensions because I never wanted or needed them and there is no sacrifice for me. But if somebody would tell me to stop using my iPhone or not to shop in Ikea they would be told to F off. So I can't really condemn girls for using hair extensions. The author of the thread made a decision not to use them although she wanted them and that is making a moral stand which I admire.

Legs.Eleven

meeeeh wrote: »

I didn't advocate all or nothing approach. As I said I don't like hair extensions and I do shop for cheaper clothing. I'm not making a moral decision about hair extensions because I never wanted or needed them and there is no sacrifice for me. But if somebody would tell me to stop using my iPhone or not to shop in Ikea they would be told to F off. So I can't really condemn girls for using hair extensions. The author of the thread made a decision not to use them although she wanted them and that is making a moral stand which I admire.

Ah right. I interpreted what you said incorrectly. Sorry!

kylith

5tratoca5ter wrote: »

Concerning the 'hair from dead people' stuff: Do you think dead people care? Is it ok to cremate (literally burn) them? Is it ok to bury them somewhere in the dirty earth? Is it ok to have someone they couldn't stand in their lifetime attend their funeral? And what about organ donation? Is that ok? Really? Hair is dead by the time it leaves our bodies on the surface, only the follicles are actually 'alive'. Organs, on the contrary, are not dead, but eerily alive and kicking when they are inserted into another person's body because modern medicine has completely lost the plot and uses people to execute vile eхperiments on them.

Oh well, since they're dead I guess it's ok to shave off their hair and sell it. And pull out their teeth and sell those too. And, while I'm at it, they won't need this dress either, or that jewellery...

There is an enormous difference between someone who decides to sell or donate their hair, knowing that it will be sold on, and someone who is coerced or forced into selling it. One is a free decision, and the other is a stripping of bodily autonomy and a denial of the right to bodily integrity.

I would consider the temples which collect hair and sell it on to be committing fraud, unless they inform all the donors what happens to the hair after it's shaved off.

loveisdivine

I've seen it mentioned a couple of times in this thread so I thought I would chime in.
If people are considering chopping off their hair and donating to a charity, you really should think twice. Do plenty of research before hand.
Locks of Love receive tonnes of donated hair to make wigs for children who've lost their hair through cancer or alopecia. However, they charge said children for the wigs and sell off any surplus hair at a profit. The family gets a certain discount depending on the parents income. But this idea that they are a charity giving free wigs to sick kids is untrue.

pwurple

loveisdivine wrote: »

I've seen it mentioned a couple of times in this thread so I thought I would chime in.
If people are considering chopping off their hair and donating to a charity, you really should think twice. Do plenty of research before hand.
Locks of Love receive tonnes of donated hair to make wigs for children who've lost their hair through cancer or alopecia. However, they charge said children for the wigs and sell off any surplus hair at a profit. The family gets a certain discount depending on the parents income. But this idea that they are a charity giving free wigs to sick kids is untrue.

That may be a slight representation. The wigs costs 1000's of euro to create, even with donated hair. They do charge the families based on a sliding scale. (based on income, those earning over 100,000 are not eligble)

On their website, they say ponytails of less than 10 inches' or adults hair will be sold to offset the cost of the wig production.

I do agree all charitable organisations should be checked to make sure they are what you think they are. But I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with their model.