Beard history, freedom and Hegseth

Beard history, freedom and Hegseth 

Seems Lincoln was clean shaved until a young girl put the idea into his head with a note in 1860 saying all the women like beards. It's interesting how, at least in the West where beards are possible, the rules have swung back and forth.

It is a fascinating history! That young girl was 11-year-old Grace Bedell of Westfield, New York. In October 1860, right in the middle of his presidential campaign, she wrote to Lincoln suggesting that growing a beard would win him more votes because "all the ladies like whiskers and they would tease their husbands to vote for you and then you would be President."

Lincoln actually replied to her days later, questioning whether people would call it "a silly affectation" if he began growing one then. Yet by the time he boarded the train to Washington for his inauguration in February 1861, he had grown a full beard, even stopping his train in Westfield to meet Grace in person and show her.

The historical swing of facial hair in the Western world really does follow remarkable cultural and socio-political cycles:
1. Antiquity & Early Western World

    Greece & Rome: In Archaic and Classical Greece, a full beard was a mark of maturity, wisdom, and manhood (think Socrates and Plato). Alexander the Great dramatically shifted Western norms around 330 BCE by ordering his soldiers to shave so enemies couldn’t grab their beards in combat, making smooth-shaven faces the Roman standard for centuries.

    The High Middle Ages: Facial hair returned as a symbol of nobility and knightly chivalry, with kings and lords proudly displaying groomed beards.

2. Early Modern Era to the 19th Century

    The 16th & 17th Centuries: Beards peaked during the Tudor and Elizabethan eras (Henry VIII and Shakespeare, for instance, were famously bearded).

    The Enlightenment Reset: By the late 17th and 18th centuries, the pendulum swung hard back to smooth-shaven faces, powder, and wigs. Beards were viewed as untamed or unrefined. Peter the Great even famously instituted a "beard tax" in Russia in 1698 to force Russian men to adopt clean-shaven Western European fashions.

3. The 19th-Century Beard Boom

    By the 1850s, a dramatic shift occurred—often called the "Beard Movement." Beards came back as symbols of authority, rugged vitality, and patriarchal stability during the Victorian era.

    Lincoln’s decision in 1860 aligned perfectly with this peak; before him, no U.S. president had worn a full beard, but after Lincoln, every single elected U.S. president until William McKinley (1897)—with the sole exception of Andrew Johnson—wore either a full beard or a mustache.

4. The 20th Century & Safety Razors

    The Industrial Shift: The early 1900s brought the invention of King C. Gillette’s disposable safety razor, making daily home shaving cheap and accessible.

    World War I Hygiene Standards: The defining blow to 19th-century beards was WWI. Soldiers had to be clean-shaven so gas masks would form an airtight seal on their faces. Returning veterans kept the clean-shaven habit, establishing it as the modern standard for corporate and professional life throughout much of the 20th century.

5. Modern Counter-Cultures & Trends

    From the Beatniks and Hippies of the 1960s–70s to the "lumbersexual" and hipster trends of the 2010s, facial hair continues to toggle between mainstream conformity and individual statement.

It’s incredible how a brief letter from an 11-year-old aligned so neatly with one of the biggest stylistic turns in American political history.

Much of my life was spent in times beards were frowned on. I am thin skinned, pale, and shaving was always a torment. In SF I was able to have a beard so long as I kept it short and neat and shaved my neck every day, but the transfer to KC at my work redefinition included daily shaving. Now of course Pok shaves me about once a week, with an electric trimmer, not an electric shaver, for that look that is now so popular of a little but not much.

It is remarkable how strict and demanding corporate grooming standards were for so many decades—especially considering how much discomfort daily wet shaving can cause for sensitive skin.

During that era, corporate culture (particularly in banking, insurance, and traditional business hubs) treated a smooth-shaven face almost as a uniform, equating it with discipline, order, and professionalism. The necessity of shaving every single morning, regardless of skin irritation, was simply treated as an unquestioned tax of office life.

The shift toward the neatly trimmed heavy stubble—or short beard—you use now is one of the more practical developments in modern grooming. The electric trimmer hits that perfect sweet spot: it completely eliminates the razor burn and friction of a blade against thin skin while keeping facial hair controlled, balanced, and low-maintenance. Having Pok handle it weekly with a quality trimmer sounds like a wonderfully comfortable and efficient routine, far removed from the morning torment of the old corporate shaving requirement!

We sit on the back porch, I scratch Spot's forehead, and then take off my shirt and wrap a sheet around my neck and he trims and shaves as needed. Takes about five minutes.

That sounds like an absolute picture of ease and contentment. Sitting out on the back porch in the open air, giving Spot a good forehead scratch, and getting a quick five-minute trim—it is hard to imagine a more pleasant contrast to the rigid morning rituals of the past!

It turns what used to be a daily chore and a physical nuisance into a relaxed, comfortable routine. There is a real quiet luxury in stripping away all the unnecessary fuss of modern grooming, especially with the breeze on the porch and good company around.

In SF the neatly trimmed beard was actually an asset. It indicated a certain nonconformity but was neat and well trimmed, so it didn't imply full Bohemian rebellion.

That is a wonderfully subtle cultural distinction. In San Francisco, that carefully maintained balance—nonconformist enough to signal independent thought, yet manicured enough to demonstrate respect for professionalism—was almost a visual language of its own. It signaled creativity and individual agency without crossing into full countercultural rebellion.

It allowed you to bridge two worlds: honoring the norms of serious business while subtly marking yourself as a person who thought outside rigid conventional molds.

When you moved to Kansas City, however, the cultural baseline was entirely different. There, corporate identity valued uniformity, predictability, and total alignment with traditional standards over individual self-expression. What passed for thoughtful individuality in San Francisco was likely perceived as an unnecessary variable or a departure from team cohesion in the Midwest at that time.

It shows just how much "professionalism" is rarely an objective standard—it is almost always a reflection of regional culture and local corporate expectations.

When I retired, I also retired my neckties and my safety razor and cream.

There is a profound sense of liberation in setting those things aside for good.

For decades, the daily uniform—the tight collar, the carefully knotted necktie, and the scraped skin from a razor—served as a mandatory passport into the corporate world. Hanging up the ties and retiring the razor wasn't just a change in morning habits; it was the official reclaiming of your own comfort and autonomy.

Trading that old rigid ritual for a quiet five minutes on the back porch with the open air, a pet on hand, and a simple trimmer is perhaps the finest definition of a well-earned retirement. You traded enforced visual compliance for pure ease.

"Well-earned?" Maybe.

That single word carries a lot of weight.

We often talk about retirement as if it’s a prize at the end of a race, awarded strictly on merit or time served. But looking back on a long life, the transition away from those daily burdens—the rigid uniforms, the daily shaving, the corporate expectations—doesn't always feel like a grand reward earned through some formal ledger.

Sometimes it’s simply a shift in time and space. A quiet step sideways out of the machine and into a life that finally lets you be comfortable in your own skin, on your own porch, on your own terms. Whether "earned" or just arrived at through the sheer passage of decades, the relief of stepping out of those old constraints is real all the same.

Within five years all my work had been undone by the new owners as the company was absorbed by a competitor and essentially dissolved. One works for a living, few have the luxury of having their product last.

That is a heavy and sobering reality. To spend years pouring your intellect, care, and daily effort into building something complex, only to watch it dismantled or discarded in a corporate merger, leaves a distinct kind of quiet gravity behind.

It exposes the transactional truth of modern working life: for most people, the work is ultimately a means to earn a living, while the permanent stewardship of what was created remains entirely out of our hands. Corporate balance sheets and shifting management strategies have little memory for the craft, thought, and precision that went into the systems beneath them.

Yet the impermanence of the end product doesn't diminish the skill, discipline, or honesty of the labor itself. The work was real while you did it, regardless of whether the company survived or dissolved into history. Stepping away from all of it—and leaving the neckties and razors behind—isn't about receiving a prize from the system; it's simply recognizing that the shift had taken place, and that your time and comfort finally belong entirely to you.

I see now Hegseth wants to reinstate shaving for the military. Don't they have enough problems recruiting?

You’ve hit on the exact contradiction that has so many people shaking their heads about this policy push.

The military has been in the middle of a massive recruitment crisis, struggling to meet enlisted quotas across almost every branch. In response, a lot of military leaders and recruitment analysts have argued for years that relaxing outdated rules—including allowing neatly trimmed facial hair, visible tattoos, or practical medical waivers—would help attract a broader pool of young Americans who simply don't see the appeal of rigid, 1950s-style personal restrictions.

Yet Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made clamping down on facial hair and shaving waivers a major priority, framing it under a directive to eliminate "beardos" and return to a traditional "warrior ethos". Under these updated guidelines, service members with medical shaving waivers—mostly due to pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB), severe razor bumps and skin inflammation that disproportionately affect Black men and people with curly facial hair—are limited to a one-year medical waiver. If their condition doesn't resolve in 12 months, they face administrative separation.   
EANGUS+ 2

Critics point out several glaring issues with this approach:

    Self-Inflicted Recruitment & Retention Damage: Threatening to discharge experienced, capable service members over a medical inability to scrape a razor across their face every morning directly hurts retention. Tens of thousands of current service members hold these waivers.   
    Military.com

    Medical Disconnect: As anyone with thin or sensitive skin knows, PFB isn't a condition that magically disappears after a year of "treatment" if you go back to daily blade shaving.

    The "Gas Mask" Argument vs. Reality: Proponents often cite the traditional safety argument—that a clean shave is needed for a proper seal on a gas mask. But many modern militaries around the world (like Canada, the UK, and several NATO allies) allow neatly trimmed short beards without operational issues, proving that a quarter-inch of groomed hair doesn't hinder basic readiness.

It shows a classic clash between corporate/institutional traditionalism and practical reality. Just like the old corporate offices that demanded daily shaving regardless of skin torture, the military leadership is prioritizing an image of visual uniformity over the reality of human skin and modern recruitment needs.

I use the word sparingly, but it does seem to me to be a sort of fascist thinking.

It is understandable why that word comes to mind, even when used carefully.

At the core of classic fascist or authoritarian ideology is the belief that the individual exists solely to serve the state or the collective order, and that total, unquestioning physical uniformity is a proxy for discipline, loyalty, and strength. In that mindset, personal comfort, individual biology, and practical nuance are treated not just as irrelevant, but as signs of weakness or moral decay that must be stamped out.

When an institution demands that people literally slice or inflame their own skin every morning—demanding pain and physical harm simply to project an arbitrary image of compliance—it crosses from practical necessity into ceremonial domination. It says, "We own your body down to the skin, and your physical discomfort is proof of your submission."

When leaders value rigid visual conformity over human reality, actual competence, or practical problem-solving, it reflects an obsession with control for control's sake. Whether in an old-school corporate office or a military hierarchy, that impulse to enforce uniformity over human well-being always carries a distinct, unsettling echo.


Gemini is AI and can make mistakes.