We prefer “vocationally challenged”, by the way.
As the third person to have posted in this string, I must say that I am awestruck that there have been so many posts. Next thing ya’ know, the Cubs will win the World Series…
You miss the point. The point is that I, and the rest of society, will respond to you by how you present yourself. If you present yourself covered with tatoos and piercings out where everybody can see them then you will be reacted to accordingly (by me and the rest of society.)
If on the otherhand you choose to hide these things then you will be reacted to accordingly, again by me and the rest of society.
If you have these unsightly things and choose to cover them then you may well be ashamed of them and just can’t afford the laser treatment yet. So yes I would give you the benefit of the doubt in that case.
If being treated with respect by you means pretending to be someone other than who I am, then I don’t want your respect and I thank you very kindly for seeing my piercings and filtering yourself out so that I don’t have to bother wasting my time being polite to you when I can be polite to someone more worthwhile.
I have piercings and wildly colored hair, and I’m treated with respect by almost everyone I meet. People like you, apparently, save me the time of figuring out they’re judgmental by staying away.
If you find them so unsightly, look elsewhere. I hear the Amish aren’t big on tattoos and piercings, so you might want to try Lancaster, PA. Much of the world, including myself, like the look of piercings and wine colored hair, so I’ll spend my time associating with them. And please, don’t make the mistake of thinking that it breaks my heart to find out someone like you wouldn’t want to talk to me.
No, again, you miss the point, and fail to answer the question to boot. Answering a different question than the one asked is prevaricating.
Say the person has an enormous tattoo covering their entire back and arms that they are quite proud of, but that you are unable to see and don’t know about. This is a person whose personality you would by definition find distasteful. They have “nothing to offer” you and are “devoid of any interest”. The question, again, is how do you tell? This would be especially difficult if said person had the gall to cover up that personality you dislike by being charming and reasonably intelligent.
The answer is you can’t. You would unfortunately have to go through the process of conversing with and actually getting to know that person to determine what their personality is actually like. I can understand that this can be an arduous task compared to the relative ease making snap judgments about whole segments of the population based on one’s stereotype, especially to those not predisposed to such behavior, but such can’t be helped.
As a student I would not be offended by someone with tatoos, our society is becoming much to politically correct to judge people on their appearence. If this person is a good teacher who cares? I’d much rather have a person who could teach with tatoos then someone who was conservative and can’t teach. Some of my best teachers have been like that!
My stance, Parkerz, is not that people with tattoos and piercings are all anti-social misfits. My contention is that, in an interview situation, the onus is on the applicant to present themselves in a way which minimizes things which might be perceived as bad and which promotes things about them which are appealing. Generally speaking, a nonstandard appearance is likely to be a net negative in an interview situation. If an applicant decides to present a nonstandard appearance it is a risk that they are accepting. The employer is not obligated to ignore a factor (the employees appearance) which may affect the businesses bottom line.
Questions for the tattooed and unusually pierced:
-
Would you show up for an office job interview wearing your nose / showing your tattoos (assuming they could be covered without inordinate difficulty)?
-
Do you feel exhibiting your tattoo/piercing over the long term (i.e. over multiple interviews over a range of years) is likely to generally hurt, help, or be irrelevant in the job application process? Why?
-
In your opinion(s), is the onus on the applicant to conform to traditional appearance standards at the interview, or is the onus on the interviewer to overlook the applicants appearance? Is this true regardless of the industry and type of employment?
Grim
A couple of years ago I used to work for what is now the second largest Banking group in Europe.
I joined through an agency originally. The “trial period” was three months, at the end of the first week they offered me a permanent job, and waived the 3 year waiting period to become part of the pension and share schemes.
Within a year I had a promotion, another year later I was offered another promotion, but I chose to leave instead.
I frequently won awards, including a couple of national ones for which I attended big posh award ceremonies. I was the “continuous improvement” representitive for our office to regional offices, and head office.
I had 24 body piercings, the majority of which in my face. A large tattoo covinging my entire upper arm, one on my inner wrist and one on my lower leg. I wore big biker boots, jeans and a “holster” wallet-thing. I never had normal coloured hair, it was frequently bright red or blue streaked, and I used to have a mohawk. I’ve also had surgery to remove my upper canine teeth and replace them with inch long titanium fangs.
Did I look unprofessional? ooooooooooh yes!
Was I unprofessional? Nope, as their appreciation of me clearly shows.
Funny thing was, when I went to work for the London Dungeon, I grew my hair back and took all my piercings out! heh!
Grim_Beaker
-
- I always wear a long sleaved shirt and a long skirt to an interview, so that tattoos would be covered. The one on my wrist may be visible, but I wouldn’t be too overly concerned about it.
The only piercing I have left is my tongue, which is unnoticable. When I had more piercings I didn’t take them out, too much hassle to put 'em all back in again.
The teeth I disguise by not moving my lips too much when I talk, but again, I’m not too fussed if anyone notices them.
- I always wear a long sleaved shirt and a long skirt to an interview, so that tattoos would be covered. The one on my wrist may be visible, but I wouldn’t be too overly concerned about it.
-
- I honestly haven’t really thought about it. I run my own company now, so I’m (hopefully) unlikely to be going to any job interviews, and I rarely meet clients.
When I first got my tattoos/piercings 8-9 years ago, I would have been more careful to hide them. Nowadays it does seem to be more acceptable, possibly because more people are showing them off at interviews and in the workplace.
- I honestly haven’t really thought about it. I run my own company now, so I’m (hopefully) unlikely to be going to any job interviews, and I rarely meet clients.
-
- I think you both have a responsibility to do what is going to benefit you most. Applicants should judge whether revealing their mods is a good or bad idea considering the type of job and company, and Employers should judge whether the prescence of these mods is good or bad for their business and whether the applicant has sufficient experience and skills to balance out any negative effect the mods may have.
I’ll try to answer your questions honestly.
**
Not anymore, no. In the past I had jobs where it didn’t matter; in fact, I actually sought those jobs out on that basis. In college, I was a musician, and had not only tattoos and facial piercings, but dreadlocks as well, which I often dyed bright colors. This made me completely unemployable for certain jobs, but other jobs were more open in their hiring requirements regarding appearance; specifically, doing telephone opinion surveys and telemarketing. I couldn’t stand to have done telemarketing so I opted for the former. Even then, it was understood that you wouldn’t really advance beyond entry level if you didn’t change your appearance. Plus, it was a shit job with low pay. After graduation I worked in a bar in Prague, where it didn’t matter (and for a while as a body piercer, where it mattered even less).
But would I show up for an interview exhibiting tattoos and piercings now? Now that I work in a white collar environment, no. But, then again, I may be in private practice in a few months, and plan on relaxing my appearance down to business casual when I’m not in court.
**
It will only help in a few rare instances (tattoo artist/body piercer, auditioning for a certaian look in a movie, something like that), and will only be irrelevant in some instances, frequently (but certainly not always) relatively low paying instances. Having an unusual look will generally at the very least “raise an eyebrow”, and in most interview situations you don’t want any eyebrows raised. It will hurt your chances often.
**
The onus is always on the applicant to do whatever is necessary to get the job, is he/she wants it. If your boss is open minded and doesn’t care about tattoos and facial piercings, that’s great. But if you want the job, it’s not a good idea to make that assumption in dressing for the interview. Err on the conservative side.
That is your own little creation and completely irrelevant to anything I have said. From my first post I have quite plainly been talking about how you “present” yourself. If you spent $5000 on the most elabrate tatoo ever but only uncover it in your house with the drapes closed then what I said does not apply to you. If on the other hand you are wandering around with these ugly designs out in the open and wearing enough metal shoved through your skin that if you tried to swin you would sink then you will be judged by how you have chosen to present yourself.
I’m really having a hard time understanding where you are coming from. Lets take it out of your own little world and into something that we both probably would find offensive. Suppose you meet someone who has a moral objection to soap. They have stopped bathing to make a “personal statement.” They like it that way. They are comfortable with themselves and their decision. Do you chose to associate with them? I would not for they have chosen to present themselves in a way that I find quite disagreeable and in fact I think I can make certain judgements about them by the mere fact that they have made this choice. And I am perfectly comfortable with that.
So what you are in essence saying is that you feel you have the right to everyones respect regardless of how you conduct yourself and anyone who fails to give you their instant respect, regardless of your questionable behavior, is a bigot.
That possitively DRIPS with the culture of entitlement that you appear to have bought into lock stock and barrel. Guess what. Respect is earned. The way you present yourself is going to factor into whether people respect you. If you choose to go out into public looking like a circus freak that is the assumption people are going to make. Whose fault is that? Yours. You made the choice. Not me.
Tir Tinuviel and pravnik:
Thank you for your reasonable responses. I don’t really find anything objectionable in either of your stances. My bone of contention is more with folk who feel that appearance is a non-issue and that potential employers are somehow being unfairly judgemental if they view an unorthodox appearance as a possible detriment. So, my beef isn’t really with either of you two. Both of you are aware of and accept any potential risks which come from a nonstandard appearance. You accept the consequences of your actions. So, even though unusual piercings and tattoos don’t really appeal to me personally, that’s responsible behavior and I can accept your stance(s) without reservation.
Grim
You keep repeating this as though it was your original assertion, or is the point I’m addressing. It wasn’t and it isn’t. That assertion is basically a restatement of the following.
"People judge by appearance. If you get a tattoo or a piercing, you run the risk that people will react to you negatively."
This, being self evident, is a statement no rational person would disagree with, so you don’t need to rephrase it further. Instead, these are the assertions you have made that I take issue with:
**1. If you have a tattoo or a piercing, you as a matter of course have a certain personality.
-
If you have a tattoo or piercing, you could not possibly be a worthwhile person to know.
-
If you have a tattoo or piercing, you have no right to complain when someone acts openly abusive towards you as a result.**
This is a false analogy, but I’ll entertain it. I have in fact known such persons, frequently Grateful Dead fans. I treat them with the respect that they treat me.
That is not at all what I am saying. I am saying that the three assertions mentioned above are false.
You’re welcome, and thank you as well.
Depends on the extent of tats/piercings. The only obvious tat I have is on my ankle. I do nothing to disguise/hide it. A pierced nose is fairly normal, so if I had an interview and my nose was pierced, I probably would not remove it. If you are offered employment based on hiding your tats/piercings, then show up the first day of work rings in place, tats showing-- that’s (IMO) a deception.
I work in a professional government office. We’re in court every day, dealing with clients, etc. I would rather see a coworker with tats/piercings, but professionally attired over a person who is wearing raggedy mismatched clothes.
I hope it become irrelevant. Body mods have nothing to do with intelligence, ability to perform work tasks, and should not solely preclude one from employment.
I guess I would not expect a Fortune 500 blue shirt company to welcome a tattooed/pierced/modified person with open arms. BUT, if the hiring choice were between a pierced/tattooed person with a better education and resume than a “normal” person, I would hope the company would go with the person who is better equipped for the job, not better outfitted.
I think a lot of people are missing the point here. In a job where a professional appearance is an important part of the job, then by definition, appearance is important. This is not true for all professions. Some jobs don’t have that expectation of “professional appearance.”
It is important then, when using appearance as a criterion, to be sure that it really matters. If an unprofessional appearance is going to hurt the business, then it becomes a valid criterion. If it truly doesn’t matter, then don’t use it to make the hiring decision.
Most of the arguments I’ve seen here (like the firefighter example on page 1) are basically arguing that for one particular example, appearance is unimportant, therefore it shouldn’t be important for any situation. That’s a bad argument. In some jobs, apperance is ‘everything.’ Let the individual situation dictate the importance of appearance.
And it can work the other way too - if you’re trying to sell a cool, hip product to teenagers, then a traditionally professional-looking guy in a suit is not a good choice - you need someone hip-looking to get the target customers to buy.
(bit of a tangent here)
By the way, the OP states that ~“rightly or wrongly, people judge by appearance”~. (Approximate quote there.) If you do indeed think it is right to judge by appearance, then you should. If you believe it is wrong, then you shouldn’t. Hiring you would be considered by some to be wrong since you are gay - perhaps even by the people who hired you. It’s good for you (and perhaps for them) that they did the “wrong” thing in some people’s eyes and hired you. Perhaps the “wrong” decision may actually be the “right” decision.
If this is an educational environment, getting the kids to think and learn and be good students is the key factor. Sometimes a bit of “radicalness” is good in a teacher. Sometimes not. I don’t think that any of us can really answer your question fully - you need to look at the details of the situation (subject, student age and expectations, her attitude, etc.) and decide if her “unprofessional” appearance is a help or a hindrance to her carrying out her job. The truth will be apparent to you if you examine the situation and take into account all of its individual details.
Fine those are the ones I will adress:
-
Yup. I would rephrase that slightly to, “If you have a visible tatoo . . .”, but otherwise, yup.
-
People who feel driven to present themselves as “body mod” do so intentionally. Just like someone who presents themselves as “gang chic” or “teenie bopper” or “sk8r” or “goth” or whatever. Such people are shallow and define themselves by the products they have purchased and the pop culture they consume. After you have attempted to interact with sheep like these you build up a track record. Namely, people who are what they wear tend to be a waste of time. How much more true is that of those who don’t just wear it but imbed it in their skin? I have little enough time without wasting it looking for the one in a hundred in each of these groups who has had an original thought in the last year.
-
Never said it. Don’t think it. You made this one up out of whole cloth.
So, just to recap: you have no friends with tattoos or piercings. You have no acquaintances with tattoos or piercings. You do not have conversations with persons who have tattoos or piercings. You take great pains to distance yourself from those with tattoos or piercings. Nevertheless, you have made sufficient observations to detail a phenomenon which you term the “tattooed or pierced personality.” I find this fascinating. When can we expect you to present your findings to the scientific community?
You make an assumption about a large group of people you have never met, never conversed with, and will not consider the worth of based on your first impression of their appearance, and you refuse to consider that that first impression may be mistaken. That assumption is that these people are “shallow.” Hee hee!
I would direct your attention to your first and second posts in this thread.
Insert, “After having conversed with a large number of such people and found them all to be interested in nothing but their body art and indeed distainful of those without body art,” after the word “re
.cap:” in your reply and you have the gist of it, yes.
I made an prediction after taking a rather large statistical sample. That is usually called “science.” HEE HEE!
I reread every post I made in this thread before I replied last time. Just to humor you I reread those two posts again. I still have no idea what you are refering to. I have never advocated acting “openly abusive” towards anyone and I challenge you to show where I did. My entire point has been advocating the treatment of people who go out of their way to be outragous as if they were not there. To treat them in a way that is “openly abusive” would only serve to give them the attension they crave.
No, that’s usually called a hasty generalization. Look, I’m sorry if a few people with tattoos have been pricks to you in the past, I really am. But that’s no reason to assume every single person on the planet with a tattoo is a prick. However many people with tattoos you may have met, I promise you I’ve met more, and the attitude you describe is definitely not the norm. Anyone who is disdainful of people without tattoos is immature.
This statement:
was jerkish and tactless. In your next post you defended your right to say jerkish and tactless things by claiming that people who had tattooed or pierced themselves should not expect common courtesy.