Sweatpants *are *pajamas. They’re what I throw on when I get home from work or when I get up in the morning, and take off before I get in the shower and leave the house. I’m not much in the shelf-hanging habit, but yes, they’re what I do my housework in.
Most tats, excepting the facial tats mentioned in the OP and the ‘hate’ ones you seem fixated on which I, despite living in a very diverse urban area haven’t actually seen in person, *are *socially acceptable now. Like jeans. Sweatpants aren’t, at least not yet, but congratulate yourself on being on the bleeding edge of at least one societal trend.
I will say one thing: I have seen people with visible facial/neck tattoos apply for white-collar corporate jobs. I have not yet seen a person with a tattoo that’d be offensive by itself (hate on the knuckles, visible nudity, etc) apply for such a job, and frankly as at all.
As for the whole sweatpants side issue, I don’t care if you show up for work in sweatpants either, presuming the dress code allows it.
Sure *some tattoos are tacky. * But so are sweatpants. And of course, the permanency of tattoos is problematic, but essentially you’re saying “It’s not okay to choose to do something tacky once, but it’s okay to choose to do something tacky every weekend.”
Well, “sweatpants aren’t” socially acceptable in your limited viewpoint and opinion. But are in a lot of other places and are based on what others (even in this thread) say. As to me? I’m not “cutting edge” anything being as I’m an old lady, and a non-sweatpants wearer, period.
0 - 2 - 4 - 6 - 8 - 10
1.2 Sweatpants on the hot
7 Sweatpants on the ugly
9 Big ol Smileyface Tattoo on the forehead
11 H A T E on the knuckles
For perspective:
8 Killing Puppies after Labor Day
Grandma is currently visiting Mom. She tried to get her to fire the cleaning lady because “her sweatsuit is too new and her hair is way too expensive!” Mom explained that yes, she gets new sweats every six months, and as for the hair, the cleaning lady’s daughter is a hairdresser - she uses the whole family as “test mannequins”.
So there you are, a person who considers that sweatpants can be too elegant for the job
I saw the thread title and came in to make a joke - if a fight breaks out don’t get left fighting the guy with tattoos on his face. However this post caught my eye.
My nephew has many tattoos, was formerly a “sandwich artist” and is now a professional photographer and a photo conservator at an internationally famous museum. So your wild assumption may be just a little lacking in accuracy.
Mind you I’m no fan of tattoos myself, they mostly look like someone slept on the funny pages.
I’ll even extend that. If someone shows up for an interview that Diana recognizes as running around the grocery store yesterday in sweat pants, she doesn’t need to consider her for hire. “Wearing sweat pants” is not a protected class.
As long as we recognize the theoretical Diana here is setting herself up to make a suboptimal hiring decision in exactly the same way as you would be if you were interviewing and didn’t consider a programmer who had a (example culled from RL coworker) 4-5" diameter Celtic knot tattoo on the back of her neck.
I’d consider that programmer. My issue is tattoos that can’t be covered. Something on the nape of your neck that can be covered by hair or a high necked shirt is no big - that’s the same sort of forethought that has you putting things on your arm that can be covered by sleeves or your pants. i.e. If you have a celtic knot on the nape of your neck, how the hell will I find out about it in an interview?
OK, so most people are missing the point of extreme tattoos/piercings, etc. Not being able to get a conservative job isn’t a drawback; it’s part of the entire point (not a bug, a feature, as the programmers would say).
Put it this way: Assume you’re young, starting a punk band, and are committed to a life outside of corporate culture, and you have an option of two equally musically talented young men. One looks clean-cut, and the other has a major earlobe disk or whatever. Now which one is more likely to drop out of the band to take a conventional straight day job, and which is more likely to be committed to the band for the long haul?
The same reasoning applies to, say, someone looking for a partner for burglaries or dope deals (If my partner’s unemployable in a straight job anyway, that’s one less threat the cops have to try and get my partner to sell me out), or even on a more minor level, choosing who to hang out and drink beer with. The point is, the tattoo is a both a signal that you’re committed to life outside of conservative employment, and a physical guarantee of that committment.
In this particular case, she has never made the slightest effort to conceal it (she wore a tank top to her interview here, in point of fact). She’s also the single best interface design person I’ve ever worked with.
Just like choosing to be an Orthodox Jew–if they didn’t want to be discriminated against, they’d shave those stupid temple-curls and not wear clearly-against-the-dress-code hats! :rolleyes:
Not enough rolleyes in the world for that load of bull.
They would if I’m the hiring authority. That shows a lack of judgment that will probably carry over into their work, and I’m not willing to take the risk.
Yes, but the whole point of the Hasid costume is to visibly mark the wearer as a Hasid. It’s making a statement to the whole world that you put your Hasid identity before everything else. And this means you know the person absolutely will not work on Saturday, will not touch people of the opposite sex, and so on.
And besides, it’s illegal to discriminate against people because of their religion. It isn’t illegal to discriminate against the facially tattooed.
I agree with the notion that there are two types of people who have facial tattoos. Those who know that having a facial tattoo will put them outside the mainstream, and they went ahead anyway. And those that are too stupid to know that having a facial tattoo will put them outside the mainstream.
If I were a hiring manager, looking at a facially tattooed applicant, I’d have to decide which category the applicant fell into, and whether it mattered or not. For some jobs it wouldn’t matter, even if it meant the applicant were an idiot. Some jobs are so crappy that pretty much anyone who applies is going to have some major obstacles to employment, if they didn’t have those obstacles they’d have a better job already. So in that case, you’d probably want the guy with the facial tattoos, because then you know the reason they want the crappy job. If you go with the normal looking guy, you’d have to wait and find out what’s wrong with them that they have to accept the crappy job.
I’m well aware its not illegal, I’m just saying it’s foolish.
Maybe it’s because I’m in a field where “deliberately puts self outside the mainstream” is generally considered an asset as a sign of creativity and self-motivation. I doubt very much that the second type (the idiot) is going to get past the phone screening for any reasonably skilled job–or at least, they’re not going to get past the screening any more often than the older guy in the great suit with the fresh degree. Hired more than my share of those who were useless as dirt before I wised up.
There are plenty such jobs, and as I said I work in a field where nobody cares.
But there are plenty of other fields where people do care, usually where the employee has to interact with customers or clients. If your customers are grandmothers who are going to be scared by the frightening person who dresses funny, your choice is to either try to educate all your customers about tolerance, or to hire the guy whose appearance doesn’t scare the grandmothers. Even if you personally don’t give a shit, you care because your customers care.
I don’t argue that, and I do think there’s a place for conformity in customer-facing roles (to a LIMITED extent, frankly–and as a former retail clerk I’m torn between"gotta give the customers what they want" vs. my dad throwing the intolerant ones out of his store with an “I don’t need YOUR business”)… but there’s been a lot of “facial tattoos AUTOMATICALLY indicate poor judgement and bad attitudes” flying around in this thread that’s just plain ludicrous.
