Hair: an "everyday" form of resistance

So I'm doing some research into the social stigmas surrounding lesbian relationships, and I come across this in a psychology database. I never thought about it before, but it's curious thought worth sharing:

"Reviews the book "Rapunzel's Daughters: What Women's Hair Tells Us about Women's Lives," by Rose Weitz. Rapunzel's Daughters is a scholarly approach to the meaning of women's hair. It shows how women think and feel about their hair and how society reacts to women's hair. The book conveys the breadth of meanings of hair color, style, and texture. In tracing the history of women's hairstyles, Weitz discusses how central hair is to appearance and how women use hair both to establish group identity and as a form of everyday resistance against their parents, husbands, dominant culture, and broader society. In the second half of the book, Weitz analyzes how hair takes on special significance for women in the workplace. In high-level jobs, women must not be too feminine but also must not cross the line by looking like a lesbian, rather they may have a "power cut". Weitz examines baldness and how involuntary hair loss has a devastating effect on women because of the stigma of aging. Weitz's writing style is clear and flows, and she carefully backs up all generalizations with excerpts from interviews."

I find myself wondering how the line is drawn between a lesbian haircut and a "power cut." As a gay gal, I feel that I have a natural understanding of it -- it's like poronography: even when you can't define it, you know it when you see it -- but I wonder how straight women define this difference.

In my personal experience, I suffered with a "lesbian" haircut for far too long (to be noted, however, that it was NOT a mullet). Now that my hair is different, I get different reactions from people. So anecdotally, I can tell you there *is* something to this Politics of Hair.