Beware the shag – why the famous fashion induced me years of hair trauma
The shag is back. The haircut, this is, now not the pastime (although given the said worldwide “sex recession,” that wouldn’t be such a horrific component, both). Shag hair – long layers that frame the face and tumble down the neck, a thick fringe to disappear at the back of – has lengthy been a diffused marker of feminine insurrection. This isn’t always a fashion that desires blowdrying, spraying, moussing, or straightening. It is the predecessor to the chiseled punk cuts of the overdue 70s, earlier than the pomp and fluff of an 80s perm. It is windswept, danced-in, slept on. Rumours-generation Stevie Nicks, Anita Pallenberg within the 70s, put up teenager-idol Marianne Faithfull finding herself on the album Broken English. The shag’s 2019 muse is Natasha Lyonne in the Netflix drama Russian Doll, in which she plays the curt, cursing, chain-smoking pc video games programmer Nadia, trapped in a time loop at her 36th birthday party. Her shag is purple and wild, her persona similar. This isn’t a lady for whom a bob or a bun or a beehive would do.
But to anybody thinking about the shag, heed this cautionary tale. I had one in the mid-00s, a wild time for hair after an unforgivable Karen O bowl reduce. I lived with someone who washed her asymmetrical bob with organic washing powder so she could transfer from Lolita blond to emo black every week. Electro-indie had loads to reply for. I spent 3 happy years with my shag. In terms of maintenance, a perimeter is a time dedication comparable to getting a puppy – however, in any other case, it definitely became wash-and-put on.
But then, sooner or later, in 2007, I went to the hairdresser’s for “a trim.” My hairdresser had known as in ill. Sandra will look when you, they said. Sandra had wonkily implemented her lipstick, I observed; some become smudged on her chin. Would she be this slapdash with my hair? Yes, it grew to become out, she could. I’d walked in with a shag; I left with a mullet. And no longer a uneven Patti Smith or Chrissie Hynde does. I looked like Pat Sharp. “You ought to just dye it crimson,” shrugged my housemate, rising from the bathroom smelling like she’d just been on a spin cycle. Regretfully, I didn’t. It took me half a decade to grow it out.
So if you are going to do a shag, make sure you have an excellent hairdresser. I’ve performed it secure with my hair on account that then, but maybe it’s time to deliver my antique shag returned. But Sandra, in case you’re reading, positioned those scissors down.
We made a choice…
… and we need to inform you approximately it. We made a preference which means that our journalism now reaches report numbers worldwide, and more than a million people have supported our reporting. We continue to stand financial challenges, but we’ve chosen no longer to place up a paywall in contrast to many news organizations. We need our journalism to stay available to all, irrespective of wherein they stay or what they could come up with the money for.
This is The Guardian’s model for open, impartial journalism: to be had for all people, funded by our readers. We depend upon contributions from our readers. Will you support our choice?
Readers’ help powers our paintings, safeguarding our essential editorial independence. In this manner, the obligation of shielding impartial journalism is shared, enabling us to feel empowered to bring about the actual exchange in the global. Your help offers Guardian newshounds the time, space, and freedom to report with tenacity and rigor, to shed light wherein others received’t. It emboldens us to challenge authority and query the fame quo. ABykeeping all of our journalism free and open to all, we can foster inclusivity, range, make space for debate, iand nspire communication – so extra humans have gthe right to accessaccurate facts with integrity at its heart.
Guardian journalism is rooted in facts with a modern perspective on the arena. We are editorially impartial, meaning we set our very own agenda. Our journalism is loose from commercial bias and not motivated by billionaire owners, politicians, or shareholders. No one steers our opinion. While there are so few resources of facts you can definitely trust, that is critical because it permits us to give a voice to those much less heard, challenges the effective, and keep them to account. With your support approach, we can maintain investigating and exploring the vital troubles of our time.
Our model permits people to support us in a way that works for them. Every time a reader like you contributes to The Guardian, regardless of how massive or small, it goes at once into investment our journalism. But we need to construct this guide for the years ahead.