Here is part of her post
"The other part of The Hair Question was much more difficult to deconstruct because it made and still makes absolutely no sense yet remains as factual as the wetness of the ocean: Women with long hair are more likely to be seen as sexual objects and are less likely to be seen as peers and professionals. When the world sees you differently, so you, too, see the world differently. When you cut off your hair and are perceived as less feminine, you start to feel more butch, more powerful, more level with your male peers. How you perceive yourself doesn’t necessarily change — nor should it — but you become acutely aware that you are perceived differently. People interact with you differently, and your opportunities for interaction change.
To put it bluntly, none but the most iconic of starlets can pull off the “sexy, sexy man-trap” look with a very short haircut. Your typical feminine sex symbols in modernity — your pinups and centerfolds, your advertising models, your WB Thursday night lineup girls, your teen pop stars, not the arbiters of art or high fashion but those designed to appeal to the least common denominator of heteronormative male sexuality — universally have long hair.
Clearly, according to the evidence we’re given by all the ephemera of our shared popular culture, long hair is feminine. But why? According to Wikipedia, “Hair length and quality can act as a cue to a woman’s youth and health, signifying reproductive potential.” I rarely disagree with the Wikipedia editors, as experts they surely are; but did anyone take the time to deconstruct this sentence?
From an evolutionary point of view, that kind of show of wealth and leisure is the type of thing a man would be expected to display under any other circumstances. Read the last sentence of the previous paragraph with a BMW in mind. Or a Saville Row suit. Or any traditionally masculine hobby designed to display one’s financial stability to potential mates.