[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by AProducer'sWetDream

Seems like a ridiculous contract in the first place tbh. It's a bit strange to sperate hairdressers by gender in any case. There are some men with long hair, so would be better served by a barber more used to cutting and styling longer hair (e.g. a "women's" barber) and some women who would be better served by someone more used to cutting short hair (a "men's" barber).

Seems more sensible to have a policy based on what sort of haircut a person wants than what's between their legs.

Well yes, its a bit of an odd contract.

Hairdressers are not really separated by 'gender' anyway, but barbers are generally for blokes and blokes only, where hairdressers will do either sex.

I think its a bit of a disgrace the difference in price between the two mind. I have a friend with short hair who gets it done at the hairdressers and it costs her 15 quid, where the local barbers would do it for 6. She has asked in the barbers before actually and been told the barbers is only insured to cut mens hair...not sure how true that is BUT I don't see why the barbers would turn down custom and make up bollocks reasons.