Locks Of Love - Good or Bad?

Well I guess someone needs to start a thread and I am willing.Here goes: while I think the Locks of Love is a worthy cause, I also worry that people with long hair will be coerced into cutting it to "do the right thing". One of the recent Miss Beauty Somethings, was it Virginia? was recently in the press for cutting tons of her hair off "for a good cause".What are the politics of this issue and is this a good thing or a thing where you get confused in the issues?Thanks for bringing the board back. I for one am glad it is back.Carol

I have yet to hear of a situation where someone cut his/her hair off because they felt socially obligated to do so. This is like saying that the Salvation Army coerces people into giving up their wardrobes. The truth is, people donate only what they're willing to part with, generally items that no longer suit their tastes, needs, or body type. The same goes for hair.But let's assume a worst-case scenario: Let's say Locks of Love is pressuring women to give up their long hair for the sake of those who can't grow any. Hair grows back. Donating a ponytail can help to heal someone's emotional scars and help them to feel "normal" and pretty again. This, in turn, can help motivate them to fight their illness and survive.But I don't see how the organization could be "pressuring" individuals to cut their hair. They don't have a mailing list of long-haired Americans. They don't have agents stationed at every salon. The most extreme situation I could imagine might be a charitable promotion going on at a salon, where the stylists would ask long-haired patrons, "Would you like to donate your hair to Locks of Love?" The customer would then have only to say no.Someone who /couldn't/ say no to that would have to have assertiveness issues, period.In fact, if I wanted to donate my hair, I wouldn't even know where to go. I'm willing to bet this Miss Virginia (or whatever) did it 1) for publicity, 2) because it IS a worthy cause, and 3) because she wanted to cut her hair anyway.Ally

> In fact, if I wanted to donate my hair, I wouldn't> even know where to go. I'm willing to bet this Miss> Virginia (or whatever) did it 1) for publicity, 2)> because it IS a worthy cause, and 3) because she> wanted to cut her hair anyway.It was Miss Virginia USA, Kellie Lightbourn. As for they hows and whys for doing it, stay tuned... =)Related Link:JerkyFlea's Celebrity Hair Spray

Hi Carol,Actually, I was considering staring this thread myself, so I'm glad you did. I had heard rumblings that some of the more long hair oriented people look upon this charity as a "scam". I'd really like to hear why for my own edification.Personally, I see it as any other charity. If you don't want to donate your old clothes to the Salvation Army or give money to the March of Dimes, then you don't. I don't see how they would have any more societal influence than any other charity. In other words, if you are keeping those jeans you never wear anymore and spending your dimes on bubblegum, odds are that you won't cut off your hair for Locks of Love.Just my opinion,JerkyFleaRelated Link:JerkyFlea's Celebrity Hair Spray

JerkyFlea,You have to look at these kinds of "charities" carefully. Locks of Love is a non-profit organization, this is true. They do not give away the wigs, they sell them at "cost". The hair may be donated, but the wigs have to be made. They are made by a "for profit" company that just happens to be owned by the person who runs Locks of Love. Now it starts to look a lot less charitable. This is probably why some people consider it a scam.Bryan> Hi Carol,> Actually, I was considering staring this thread> myself, so I'm glad you did. I had heard rumblings> that some of the more long hair oriented people look> upon this charity as a "scam". I'd really> like to hear why for my own edification.> Personally, I see it as any other charity. If you> don't want to donate your old clothes to the Salvation> Army or give money to the March of Dimes, then you> don't. I don't see how they would have any more> societal influence than any other charity. In other> words, if you are keeping those jeans you never wear> anymore and spending your dimes on bubblegum, odds are> that you won't cut off your hair for Locks of Love.> Just my opinion,> JerkyFlea

> In other> words, if you are keeping those jeans you never wear> anymore and spending your dimes on bubblegum, odds are> that you won't cut off your hair for Locks of Love.Hi JerkyFlea,Your statement seems to presume that people who have long hair choose to not cut it based on a choice to retain things which aren't seen by others as being immediately useful. Being resourceful/frugal/thrifty and simultaneously being charitable are not necessarily mutually exclusive attributes.I also sense a subtle condemnation (a guilt trip) on your part toward that subset of long-haired people who choose not to cut off their hair for charity. Should like-minded but perpetually short-haired people be made to feel badly for not growing their hair long so that they, too, could potentially donate hair to charity? No. And likewise, neither should those long-haired people be made to feel badly for wishing to keep it long in the face of choices to the contrary.Dave

Hi Iggy,> To say that Locks of Love doesn't pressure people is> maybe correct, but it's whole premise in helping> children who are seriously ill must engender pressure> on long haired women, who know about it, to part with> their hair. I can imagine jealous friends or colleages> applying such pressure and guilt.Case in point: Just two days ago, I met a group of three young women (friends of each other). One of them has waist-length hair, the others shoulder-length hair. The one with waist-length hair told me that one of the other two friends has been pushing her to cut her hair and give it to Locks of Love.> Keep your lovely long hair and send money to buy wigs> if you feel it worthwhile. You short haired people> could do the same.I recently read a "People" magazine article about Locks of Love which stated that they have had 20,000 donations yet have made very few wigs (about 50?, with about 10 donations per wig), and that the reason they haven't made more of the hair into wigs was for want of money. I would agree with you, Iggy, that the better way to help (within this micro-context) would be for people to send money to pay for the making of wigs... yet I am concerned about Locks of Love's conflict of interests, which Bryan has pointed out.Dave

Hi everyone,I'm responding to several posts in this one, so it may be kind of long, which I apologize for in advance...First Dave, who says:Your statement seems to presume that people who have long hair choose to not cut it based on a choice to retain things which aren't seen by others as being immediately useful. Not true. I was simply relating the first examples that came to mind. I could have easily tossed in donating time at a soup kitchen or building a house for Habitat for Humanity. One's time is obviously a very useful commidity, as is one's money as in the case of of my March of Dimes example. What you choose to do with it is entirely your decision.Being resourceful/frugal/thrifty and simultaneously being charitable are not necessarily mutually exclusive attributes.Very true. As a matter of fact, a personal pet peeve of mine is letters to the editor of the newspaper that lament that anytime any large expenditure is made that the writer may consider frivilous (e.g., the city's Christmas tree), the money could have been better used to educate children, feed the homeless, etc.I also sense a subtle condemnation (a guilt trip) on your part toward that subset of long-haired people who choose not to cut off their hair for charity. Should like-minded but perpetually short-haired people be made to feel badly for not growing their hair long so that they, too, could potentially donate hair to charity? No. And likewise, neither should those long-haired people be made to feel badly for wishing to keep it long in the face of choices to the contrary.I truly don't know where you picked that up from my initial post. I have absolutely nothing against long hair. In fact, Mrs. Flea currently has almost waist-length hair, which I love. She has no immediate plans to cut it, but she has said that if she ever decided to cut it, that donating the cut hair to Locks of Love would be a worthwhile gesture, since just throwing it away would be a waste. And I can't disagree with that. That doesn't, however, change the fact that I love her hair long and hope it stays that way.Iggy sez...To say that Locks of Love doesn't pressure people is maybe correct, but it's whole premise in helping children who are seriously ill must engender pressure on long haired women, who know about it, to part with their hair. I can imagine jealous friends or colleages applying such pressure and guilt. I don't believe you can isolate the "pressure and guilt" of donating to a chartity to just to Locks of Love. Haven't you ever had a United Way fund drive in your office? =)Anyway, I look at it this way: it is unfair to pressure or guilt anyone into donating to any organization, since it should be done for genuine philathropic reasons (though the tax break is what drives most). In other words, if I'm rich, I'm going to get pressure to donate money. If I own a shoe factory, I'll get asked to donate shoes to the homeless. If I own a restaurant, I'll get requests to donate extra food to the needy. And, if I have long hair, I may get suggestions to cut my hair to donate it to kids who can't grow hair. Do I have to do any of those things in any of those situations? Not at all.Is anyone seriously telling me that quality wigs are in such short supply in the US that long haired women need to part with their hair? I think not. The wigs produced by Locks of Love are custom fit, personalized wigs that would normally retail in the range of $3000. These wigs go to kids who can't afford these type of high quality hairpieces. Actually, some families have difficulty paying for any sort of wig and need to go through their HMO (which, in many cases, refuses to pick up the cost). I'm sure, Iggy, if you were able to work with one of the wig companies to organize their donating high quality wigs to these kids, we would support your efforts as well.Speaking of cost, that leads us to Brian who writes...You have to look at these kinds of "charities" carefully. Locks of Love is a non-profit organization, this is true. They do not give away the wigs, they sell them at "cost". The hair may be donated, but the wigs have to be made. Actually, the wigs are either given to the children for free or are priced on a sliding scale based on the family's income. This ensures that the children can get the wigs as intended, but also makes sure the organization has funds to continue making the wigs. As you said, the hair may be donated, but the wigs have to be made. It takes a minimum of 4 months to make one of these wigs by hand (since they are custom wigs). Since they get much more hair donated than money, in order to continue, they must cover the cost of making the wigs. And, I would think, it would be difficult to get someone to work 4 months for free.They are made by a "for profit" company that just happens to be owned by the person who runs Locks of Love. Now it starts to look a lot less charitable. This is probably why some people consider it a scam. To my knowledge, neither the woman who founded Locks of Love, Peggy Knight, nor the Executive Director, Jennifer Cox, runs the company that actually manufactures the wigs. Ms. Knight started the organization because she suffers from alopecia areata herself. Ms. Cox runs the office with one other full-time person and a myriad of volunteers.Doesn't exactly sound like a pyramid scheme to me, how about you?And finally to Carolyn B and BB, I don't find you selfish for not wanting to cut your hair and donate. Unlike cash or old clothes or your time, your hair is something that's part of your self-image and thus, in many ways, an even more significant sacrifice than the other things I mentioned. Thus, just because you have long hair, that is no reason to cut it and donate it anymore than just because you have a nice car, you should sell it and give the proceeds to Jerry's Kids. That's just ludicrous.JerkyFleaRelated Link:JerkyFlea's Celebrity Hair Spray

> I agree with many of the things you say but wanted to> respond anyway.Me, too.> I am in the UK so I'm afraid I have no idea what a> United Way fund drive is. We have had collections for> various charities at my company but I work away from> the office so have no idea what sort of peer pressure> is applied during these collections.Here in the US, fund drives can be very unpleasant things, as I and others have experienced. Many companies put heavy pressure on their employees to boost the companies' tax credits or public image.> If this is the case and they take so long to make then> surely the largest cost, by far,is labour to make the> wigs. Getting the hair supplied for free must make an> insignificant difference to the overall cost. Asking> women to cut their hair is probably done more for> publicity value than the actual need for their hair.Excellent points. LOL doesn't need a PR firm. It relies on zealous do-gooders who don't mind laying guilt trips on others. People get worked up over the plight of the victims and see no problem in pressuring even complete strangers. Trust me, in the past couple of weeks, I've had more people mention LOL to me, that it's been almost like the "Twilight Zone." Yesterday, an aquaintance at church and later a stranger at the store mentioned my long hair and brought up LOL. This thing is almost bigger than Pokemon.Also, Dave D. quoted a People magazine article, one that I've read, too. There is a fact about LOL that people should be alerted to, especially those individuals who donate their hair in good faith: the organization is considering selling some of the donated hair to raise money to cover the creation of the wigs. Exactly where the sold hair winds up is anyone's guess, but if I donated my hair, believing it would be reserved for some poor, afflicted child's head, and I discovered it went to some hair auction or to an expensive wigmaker instead, I'd be seriously ticked.> For some reason, kids in the UK in a similar position> don't seem to feel the need for a wig. Perhaps your> society engenders vanity more than ours? Just a> thought.. (Iggy ducks down behind computer as> avalanche starts)..I betcha you're right. No offense taken.Jennifer Eve

JerkyFlea,In response to your response to my comments, I believe I saw the same show another person commented on, either 20/20 or Nightline, some months ago. As I remember it, the lady representing LOL said her other company made the wigs. It seems to be my nature to be sceptical of charities like this. Whether or not it takes a lot of effort to make a wig and the employees need to be paid, it still stands that the wig making company is not a charity but in it for profit. Why not have LOL hire their own people and make the wigs themselves? You could still pay the employees and be non-profit. I still think that the reason for this separation is to make money with a non-profit organization. It seems fishy to me at best.

Jennifer said...> Also, Dave D. quoted a People magazine article, one> that I've read, too. There is a fact about LOL that> people should be alerted to, especially those> individuals who donate their hair in good faith: the> organization is considering selling some of the> donated hair to raise money to cover the creation of> the wigs. Exactly where the sold hair winds up is> anyone's guess, but if I donated my hair, believing it> would be reserved for some poor, afflicted child's> head, and I discovered it went to some hair auction or> to an expensive wigmaker instead, I'd be seriously> ticked.First, I agree completely that all donated hair should go to the making of wigs. However, let's put ourselves in the position of LOL for a second. You have a large number of people donating hair and very few donating money. So, you have a surplus of hair and a shortage of cash. Since your mission is to make these wigs, an obvious way to raise more money is to sell the hair. Not the best solution, but I would wonder what your alternative would be?JFRelated Link:JerkyFlea's Celebrity Hair Spray

Well, my answer stems from my next query: why then do LOL's supporters and staff keep asking for more hair donations, if they're already overwhelmed with ponytails and braids? Wouldn't it seem logical to pull way back and work with what they've got now? Then they could ask for monetary donations to pay for the labor to transform the thousands of untouched hair locks into wigs. Since they're not doing this, there has to be another point to LOL besides just providing free or inexpensive wigs for children. Seems to me that the titillating nature of the hair cutting and hair cutting shows (oh, yes, they're called "makeovers") is more what they're after, basically for free PR, all glossied over with rosy references to personal sacrifice and aiding unfortunate children. And it seems to me that someone, somewhere, has a real fix on cutting hair, period. And that someone takes advantage of the generous nature of innocent/ignorant people.Jennifer Eve> First, I agree completely that all donated hair should> go to the making of wigs. However, let's put ourselves> in the position of LOL for a second. You have a large> number of people donating hair and very few donating> money. So, you have a surplus of hair and a shortage> of cash. Since your mission is to make these wigs, an> obvious way to raise more money is to sell the hair.> Not the best solution, but I would wonder what your> alternative would be?> JF

Before I bail out on this angle of the argument, since you, Iggy and others are spinning off into your own paranoid anti-long hair conspiracy theories, I want to point out two things:FIRST: The woman who founded LOL, Peggy Knight, suffers from alopecia areata herself and started the organization to aid children who may suffer from riducule due to their hair loss from the same condition or cancer treatment. Hopefully, you don't see anything sinister or "titillating" in that.SECOND: If you read the site, they do publicize that they accept monetary donations, even providing a place on the site through which to make a contribution. Also, they indicate that "Donated hair that is not suitable for use in children's hairpieces may be sold at fair market value to offset the cost of manufacturing.", so it's not as though they hide that fact either. You can read their press release here.I will agree on the point that the donating of the ponytails is the more dramatic donation and thus gets all the press, especially since it's such a unique way to contribute compared to other charities. However, if the press chooses to concentrate on that aspect, you can't blame LOL, nor could you expect them to dissuade whatever positive publicity they can get. If the cutting of hair as a charitable donation offends you, then don't contribute to them. However, calling into question their motives simply based on your own biases is truly unconcionable.JerkyFleaRelated Link:JerkyFlea's Celebrity Hair Spray

> Before I bail out on this angle of the argument, since> you, Iggy and others are spinning off into your own> paranoid anti-long hair conspiracy theories, I want to> point out two things:> FIRST: The woman who founded LOL, Peggy Knight,> suffers from alopecia areata herself and started the> organization to aid children who may suffer from> riducule due to their hair loss from the same> condition or cancer treatment. Hopefully, you don't> see anything sinister or "titillating" in> that.> SECOND: If you read the site, they do publicize that> they accept monetary donations, even providing a place> on the site through which to make a contribution.> Also, they indicate that "Donated hair that is> not suitable for use in children's hairpieces may be> sold at fair market value to offset the cost of> manufacturing.", so it's not as though they hide> that fact either. You can read their press release> here.> I will agree on the point that the donating of the> ponytails is the more dramatic donation and thus gets> all the press, especially since it's such a unique way> to contribute compared to other charities. However, if> the press chooses to concentrate on that aspect, you> can't blame LOL, nor could you expect them to dissuade> whatever positive publicity they can get. If the> cutting of hair as a charitable donation offends you,> then don't contribute to them. However, calling into> question their motives simply based on your own biases> is truly unconcionable.> JerkyFleaJerkyFlea,Well, isn't this special. Some folks raise legitimate questions and concerns, and what do you do? Attempt to discredit them as "biased" and "spinning off into paranoid conspiracy theories." Your pooh-poohing of these questions and concerns seems to be an attempt to belittle those with whom you disagree, and shows that you just don't care who gets "touched" in a less-than-positive ways by LOL's media campaign.It was only you, JerkyFlea, who just shamefully associated (by deflection) the word "titillation" with the circumstances of LOL's founder. I can't even begin to imagine why you even made your comment. I'm certain that ABSOLUTELY NOBODY associated the medical condition of LOL's founder with "titillation."That word has been used to describe the circumstances surrounding the method of "collection" so often displayed by the various "for-profit" media agencies (especially TV), which use the spectacle to their own financial advantage.The reality of the situation (as observed from Jennifer's encounters and mine, among who-knows-how-many others not expressed here) is that (a) the general public is fairlywell aware of LOL, and (b) that some among the general public (who themselves do not have long hair) ARE approaching those that do have long hair, and are, at the very least, broaching the subject of LOL, and in other cases, are outright pressuring some to give away their hair. Do you believe, JerkyFlea, that the means justify the ends?I'm not aware of the occurrence of similar pressure being applied by long-haired folks towards short-haired folks, such as approaching short-haired strangers and friends alikeand asking them, "How long have you had short hair? For years? Then why don't you grow your own hair long so that you can cut it off and give it away to charity?" (Notethat I'm not advocating its initiation.) In a general sense, to say that "helping one's self or others" is a noble pursuit, but pressuring someone else into cutting off their long hair for LOL does not qualify as "doing one's own part" for a specific charity.Although monetary contributions are mentioned on LOL's site, I have seen a number of these "collections" for LOL on TV shows, and never once was money mentioned as a potential means of donation, even though several times LOL reps have been in attendance in the audience, and been briefly interviewed on-camera. Why is it that the need for money, which seems to be LOL's biggest need, is never mentioned during the media broadcasts?Dave

Ever hear of companies that match employee donations? For every dollar the employee gives, the corporation gives the exact same amount. Many companies that support the United Way practice this. Not only is the employee stuck on a guilt trip for his own donation (and they *really* push!), despite the fact that he may give to his place of worship or other non-United Way charities, but the employee is left holding the responsiblity for the corporate gift as well. "The more you give, the more we'll give, but the less you give, the less we'll give."Talk about coersion! And there's the tax break you overlooked.Jennifer Eve> Bang on, Jennifer!> But please clear something up for me. In Canada, we> also> have United Way, but the employing companies do not> get> tax breaks for the donations of their employees; the> employees do, though. Have I got that right: U.S.> employers> get tax deductions for their employees' donations?> Brian> aq093@freenet.carleton.ca> **********************

> There is not any need for any lady to cut her hair forlocks of love. Synthetic hair wigs are replacing manyhuman hair wigs. Synthetic hairs wigs do NOT dry out,and they cost less money. Many ladies with hair loss,are wearing the synthetic hair wigs,which are of goodquality. The synthetic hair wigs give an excellentenhancement to a ladies appearance, and there are a largenumber of synthetic wigs,available.

There is NO need for Locks of Love. Synthetic hair wigsare better than human hair wigs,and synthetic hair wigsare lower priced,and provide a lady with a more brilliantenhancement of hair. Human hair wigs do dry out,butsynthetic hair wigs will provide a better hair enhancementfor ladies,with hair loss. There are a large numberof synthetic hair wigs,that are replacing human hair wigs.In my area most of the ladies with hair loss,want thesynthetic hair wigs. I would say,that eventually humanhair wigs,will be a thing of the past.

> There is not any need for a lady,to cut her hair forLOL Synthetic wigs are replacing many human hairwigs. Many ladies with hair loss,do like the large numberof new synthetic hair wigs that are on the market.Synthetic hair wigs are of good quality,and they areless expensive. Human hair wigs dry out, so many ladieswith hair loss,now buy the better synthetic hair wigs,which provide excellent hair enhancement. The need forhuman hair wigs has decreased.

>Locks of Love is not needed. There are plenty of goodlong hair synthetic wigs available. There is not anyreason to pressure a lady to cut her long hair off.There are a large number of excellent quality syntheticlong hair wigs available to all children. The quality ofsynthetic hair wigs has improved,and the cost is less,than human hair wigs. Human hair wigs tend to dry out.

To those who see a conspiracy by Locks of Love, no, I doubt there is any conscious conspiracy, or any intent to deceive in their sale of donated hair to support their financial needs, but I also think they minimize public awareness of this. Their intent is extremely good, and they do serve a purpose. BUT...the supporters of LOL are definitely putting undue pressure on long haired women to give up the hair that often means a very great deal to them. Look, if it were no big deal giving up the bulk of one's hair, the children LOL serves wouldn't need it! Hair has a huge psychological importance, to those who have it and those who want it. The coercion that definitely exists to cut it off and give it to LOL is inappropriate. In any case, since it has to sell off some of the donations to get money, money is what is needed most, anyway. Those who freely decide to donate their hair should be saluted, but LET'S NOT DEMEAN THE WHOLE PROGRAM BY PRESSURING WOMEN TO GIVE UP THEIR HAIR OR FEEL LIKE SCABS.