Unless you’d add Gucci Mane to the list, it’s not terribly relevant to the discussion at hand.
Which are? Seriously, did you read anything that I wrote other than “facial tattoos are a terrible idea”? Because if the rest of your post is directed at me, I suggest that you go back and read the whole thread.
I think we can leave Seal out of this discussion; as far as I know, his facial scarring was caused by a medical condition (discoid lupus erythematosus).
South Central L.A. But I wouldn’t restrict it to ‘adult living’.
I’m not aware that there’s a committee that lets other people decide what the cutoff point is for membership in a culture.
The problem is the facial part of facial tattooing: 60 years ago, tattooing was something a Navy boatsman got. Now you can’t take a photo of a board of directors and be certain SOMEONE in the photo doesn’t have ink.
You’re just on the leading edge of the offended that used to get bent out of shape with nose rings, earrings on men, and Elvis’ disgusting hip swiveling!
The kids gotta rebel, dig? They’re gonna do something SPECIFICALLY because it pisses off the squares. When the Squares have barbell spine piercings, well, they’ll just have to find something else to rebel with.
And then they grow up and may (or may not) regret the sins of their youth. If they don’t regret them, you don’t hire them. Luckily, there’s LOTS of places that will.
In my field (urban planning, whose practitioners generally have a leftward bent), forget it. You’re often dealing with elected officials, developers, citizens groups, and the like, and facial or neck ink would destroy your credibility. I work in municipal government for a very liberal community, and I don’t think anyone here could pull off facial or neck ink at work.
The City of Austin might be an exception, but it’s probably because more people in that city have visible ink than not.
Oh, honey, I think you’re reading things that aren’t there. Offended? I’m not offended by facial tattoos, multiple tattoos, body modification, branding, scarification, or any of that. One of my best friends split his own tongue with fishing line. I myself have one ear pierced 10 times, and have a couple of tattoos.
The discussion isn’t “oh my god the old people are offended” (nice to know at 44 I’m old!). The discussion is “do people with facial and neck tattoos [which are not a required part of our culture] have problems getting jobs?”
And the answer is…probably, depending on the type of job they’re looking for. There are lots of fields where it probably would be less of a problem, but there are still fields where facial and neck tattoos would be problematic. That’s a pretty simple and factual statement to make.
And again, if people want to participate in a non-conformist culture, they don’t get to bitch when that participate ends up causing them challenges in moving into the “conformist” or corporate culture.
The strawmen arguments of “would you discriminate against African tribesmen and Maori warriors” is just nonsensical distraction.
Thank you for putting this into such an easy to understand manner.
It astounds me that some supposedly intelligent people can’t comprehend this simple truth.
“Oh Honey?” Please. You’re not my Sweet Cheeks, you’re not pouring my coffee, and you’re not complementing me on my disposition.
Question: Facial and Neck Tattoos, do they have problems finding jobs?
Answer: It depends.
NEXT!
Not much of a discussion to be had there.
Do you have a hard time getting a job as a developer at a game studio? Possibly not.
Do you have a hard time getting a job as a janitor? Elder Statesman? Bishop? Motorcycle builder? Electrical Linesman? Pastry Chef? Cop? Bricklayer? Ditch Digger? Barista? Architect? Rockstar? Babysitter? It really depends on who you know and how good you are.
If the bestest awardwinningest architect has “Eat at Joes” tattooed on his forehead, but he builds unbelievable houses at reasonable prices…can you overlook your bias? If not, I’m sure the guy will have more than enough business to get by.
You know, as long as our brush is wide and our characterizations general. :dubious:
I’m not sure where your hostility about this issue is coming from, but it’s clearly something that you feel attacked about.
If a person with facial or neck tattoos is building enough houses that someone not hiring her or him isn’t an issue, then they wouldn’t be bitching that nobody hires them, would they?
Facial and neck tattoos don’t fit into some work cultures, fit great in others, and are neutral in still others. The vast majority of work cultures into which those body modifications would not fit would more than likely be things that have a lot of prestige and societal respect - banking, for example. Of course, the current financial crisis has reduced that social respect considerably 
And of course it’s a bias when employers feel that people with neck and facial tattoos are indicating a particular thought process and mindset with that choice. I’m not sure what the “argument” is at this point, frankly. Are you saying that employers shouldn’t have that bias? That’s a fair point of discussion - except that other people in the thread, some employers and some not, have been discussing it, and why that bias exists.
Should it exist? Good question. The people I know with facial and neck tattoos aren’t applying for jobs at banks or law firms or high-powered corporate positions. But they do seem to have more trouble finding stable employment that my friends without those body modifications. Some of that is employer bias, but frankly, some of it is that they’re the kind of people who are not that reliable in their work attendance, and don’t make fabulous choices about priorities - work comes last, after the other parts of their lives are handled. Is that true for every single person with a facial or neck tattoo? Obviously not.
Then, there’s been this sidetrack of “What about the African tribal scars? What about the Maori? Huh? Huh? What about them!?!?!” Which, I contend, is not relevant to the original OP.
My hostility came from the personal comments, other than that, my statement has been:
Facial tattoos may be a problem, for some jobs, today but may not be in the future, as society becomes accustomed to it. There was a time where a black president was unheard of.
I’ll add that employers tend to have a bias for people who do a good job. If appearance is an issue, it will be a criteria. If artistic merit is an issue, appearance may not be.
[Nitpick]If you mean the performer Seal his facial scars are due to lupus, specifically discoid lupus erythematosus, not bodyart and isn’t really a good example to use for this thread. [/nitpick]
I wasn’t aware that I had made any personal comments.
And I agree that in the future, facial tattoos are probably not going to be as big of an issue as they are now.
To equate body modification choices to the history of a particular ethnic group in terms of the history of difficulties that people have had and the treatment they’ve received undermines the seriousness of your arguments, I feel.
Employers SHOULD have a bias for people who do a good job. I think the workplace rants and gripes that have been posted on this board in the past indicates that in many, many cases, that is simply not true. There have been stories that others have shared of co-workers and bosses who are incompetent, lazy, manipulative, mean, untrustworthy, and in other ways not doing “a good job,” and in many of those stories, those people are hired, promoted, or kept on in spite of those characteristics.
An employer who is hiring a person, and who has no background on the person other than their application and their appearance, SHOULD make decisions based solely on the person’s employment history and accomplishments therein. But in addition to that, interviewers do take into consideration appearance and whether or not a person’s appearance fits with their corporation’s or business’ culture.
You chose to get a tattoo to send a message about yourself. Now don’t complain if some people choose to not like the message you’re sending. People who don’t like tattoos are expressing their individuality just as much as people getting tattoos are.
Most of the librarians I know who are under 40 have at least one tattoo, whether it be small or large. Most of them have multiple tattoos, some of which are visible. This is apparently much more prevalent in academic libraries than in public libraries, and my current workplace (whose school culture is otherwise very conservative) has a lot of folks who are tattooed in someplace that ends up being noticeable eventually if you’re an observant person. After working with the public for a number of years, I can tell you that I saw at least as many tattooed people as untattooed people in the area, many of whom were heavily or visibly tattooed. Would I not hire someone because of a visible tattoo? It depends on their other qualifications, what they’d be doing, how much contact they’d have with the public, and whether I (as a tattooed person) found their tattoo offensive. I care very little whether people I interact with are tattooed, but if it’s visible and I find it interesting, I’ll often ask about it.
Not to offend, but I always thought that the velour trackpants look was kind of silly, and verging on tacky if large logos or butt prints were added. You know, like the Juicy Couture stuff with giant text across the butt. They’re more “at home” wear than “wear in public” stuff unless you’re sick and have to run an errand/go to the doctor’s office while doing so.
This reminds me a bit of the parents of a friend I had in college. They were thoroughly convinced that any written or spoken German was automatically an anti-Semitic commentary. How did I find this out? We were listening to Tool’s “Die Eier Von Satan”, which is a song about making a baked dish called “Satan’s Balls” and her mother had an outburst about it saying something akin to “kill all the Jews”. It was a bit paranoid of her, and sadly, even with the horrors of the Holocaust in the memories of the children of survivors, I still think that automatic assumptions are not in any way conducive toward healing and preventing future genocides, and are more likely to promote anger and hatred for others.
But he’s paving the way for others to have scarification in the arts! (whether he intended to or not.)
Listen, people read a post with the emotion THEY read into it, not necessarily the emotion the author put into it.
Honestly, the only folks I’ve encountered with facial tattoos were on the Tee Vee or on teh Intertubes, I have no idea what their employment history is, or whether the tattoos were a REASON for their inability to hold a job/Get Clean/Become President or a SYMPTOM for the other reasons why they couldn’t hold a job/etc/etc.
[QUOTE=nashiitashii]
It was a bit paranoid of her, and sadly, even with the horrors of the Holocaust in the memories of the children of survivors, I still think that automatic assumptions are not in any way conducive toward healing and preventing future genocides, and are more likely to promote anger and hatred for others.
[/QUOTE]
Dude, did you just Godwin a tat thread?
Niiice. 
No offense taken. Before I had Junior I thought they were tacky too. Now I just think they’re comfortable, don’t hurt my c-section incision (which is still hurting, 5.5 months later - grumble) and look a weeeeee bit nicer than a regular old track suit. I also wear lululemon gear quite regularly for the same reason. Comfortable and I don’t look quite as heinous as I would in regular sweats.
And for the record, I NEVER go out with writing across my ass. Tacky is an understatement.
No shit. Employers who make judgments based on facial tattoos are no different than people who participated in genocide, and people with facial tattoos have undergone discrimination at the same levels as African-Americans.
Did somebody slip acid into my coffee this morning?
Goo goo, goo goo barabajackal.
God, I would have loved to have been there for that conversation: “Dammit, Mom, it’s just some guy from LA singing in German about the devil’s testicles! You don’t have to act all weird about it!”
It’s not just the Jews who might feel that - the friend in question, and his mother, are Catholic and Austrian. I somehow think her associations of Nazis and tattoos weren’t formed by mindless acceptance of stereotypes but rather while being held down by armed men while numbers were carved into her arm against her will.
For Jews, there is a religious prohibition on tattoos, but it applies only to Jews not to non-Jews.