In my past associations within certain IFB circles, men have stood in the pulpit condemning men who wore long hair. Some believe a man's hair was considered long if it touched your collar or touched your ears. These same men stood in the pulpit and condemned women for wearing pants. They insist that pants are strictly for men. While attending the Sword of the Lord Conference in July of 2000, I witnessed a certain preacher stand before a massive congregation and condemn preachers who preach against men with long hair, while they keep quiet about women "cutting their hair like a man." He went even further and picked out a woman in the congregation who apparently disagreed, going even so far as climbing up onto the podium to the cheer and applause of the majority of the audience. He actually called the woman a "hussy." I don't know if the lady's husband was present and I wondered if this preacher would be witnessing to the Tooth Fairy later that night. Back at home, the pastor of the IFB church where I had joined myself for a few years preached more than once about men with long hair, saying, "it is the most sissy-fied (?) thing" he has ever seen. Yet his wife wore her hair short. (sidenote: he also insisted on women members wearing dresses, yet his own wife wore pants outside of the building) The Bible says that nature itself teaches that it is a shame for men to have long hair, but for a woman, it is a glory to her. Now I wonder... Does Larry Brown have a legitimate argument? Is he correct in his assessment that we fall short (no pun intended) when it comes to women's hair? I would like to hear from both sides, and with solid arguments (not like Larry Brown's "what's short? The opposite of long, you dummy." ) Does a woman's hair length matter?