Speaking as someone who hires faculty to teach in a university, I’ve got to tell you that your concerns are pretty reasonable. We have many, many qualified candidates for every opening, and I’m actively seeing out reasons to disqualify applicants. If I see visible ink, I’m going to wonder if this is someone who gets along with others, who will agree to be a part (a very small part, at first ) of a larger body, who will accept getting assigned the kind of courses and courseload and schedule that we assign to junior faculty, without complaining, or is this the kind of prima donna who values his/her own positions above anyone else’s, who feels so confident in his own/her own judgment that he/she freely disregards others’ views, and so on. I haven’t seen inked applicants, mind you, and if I’ve hired someone with ink, they’ve been more than discreet, which is all I ask, but I’ve definitely NOT hired people in the past who give off vibes of not being team players–flamboyant or inappropriate dress, applicants who talk about their planning for re-structuring the department or university, or who ask for specialized courses related to their own work rather than what our students need.
I don’t think I’m biased against ink, btw, as an expression of personal views or aesthetics–when I first came on the job market, I wore my hair pretty long, and had published a lot of stuff (mainly journalism) that revealed pretty openly my own very individual positions on some controversial topics, and was glad to display my independence for anyone who wanted a more conservative candidate than I was. But what I have against inkers is my sense that they plainly feel very confident in their current thinking, and will always seek to justify positions they have taken in the past rather than evolve to cope with new emerging situations: IOW, I’m concerned that these people (based only on their tattoos) are oddly
conservative, and hardline in defending their past judgments, which is very undesirable in a job that demands a lot of flexible thinking and willingness to change. An applicant might as well come into an interview with me and stick his fingers in his ears every time I try to talk, and say “Nya-nya, I’m not listening.” I probably wouldn’t hire that person either.
I’m not trying to brush your fears aside, but you can be assured that at least this woman got a job. (She might have gotten her job before some of her more extreme modifications, though!) She looks even more extreme in person - I had Canadian history with the most conservative-looking, tweedy prof in a classroom following Dr. Bell’s class, which was always interesting. Her areas of interest probably also allow for her unusual look, too, so I would suppose it depends what your sister studies.
FWIW, my tattoos are visible even in business professional wear, and I have several facial piercings that I always wear jewelry in. I had no problem getting or keeping professional jobs. I’ve worked in politics and governmental affairs, retail store management, as an IT consultant and in Marketing.
My husband is a librarian for a University, and the majority of his younger colleagues are far more modified than I am. Universities tend to be, in my experience, even MORE accepting of mods than the business community. And I know plenty of modified people who teach, and have no problem commanding respect.
Then again I’ve known plenty of button-down, white bread, conservative types who command no respect whatsoever. It’s got nothing to do with appearance.
Not hiring someone because of tattoos doesn’t have to be based on any stereotypes; if your hiring manager simply doesn’t like tattoos (like, for example, me), then they might hire someone who doesn’t have tattoos over a similarly-qualified individual just on that basis. I don’t like facial piercings, either - I don’t ascribe any stereotype to people having them, I just don’t want to look at them day after day, and as a hiring manager, I definitely would choose against them.
It’s your business and certainly your right to run it in nonsensical ways if that’s what you want to do. I was talking about ascribing character traits to everybody with tattoos, since your statement implied there is some fundamental personality difference between people who have tattoos and people who don’t.
Wow, I think you’re reading faaaaaar too much into something so incredibly simple it’s almost primal. Tattoos do not mean that their wearers are inordinately hard-headed or inflexible; In fact, I’d venture to say that a sampling of people with tattoos would be no more or less likely to be as inflexible and unwilling as the general population. The ink doesn’t seep into your brain and make you a rebellious, crazy, unthinking cretin.
Every profession I’ve had has required an enormous amount of flexibility, creative problem solving, and the ability to work with the public as well as a team.
And as I said before, if you look at the professions that come down the hardest on tattoos and modifications, it’s places the food service industry where flexibility is the last thing they want in their employees.
Precisely. People with tattoos are just people. Who happen to have tattoos. We are no more or less anything than anyone else. You’ll find tattooed people with specific character traits in about the same distribution as the general populace. So yeah, you’ll have some people with tattoos that fit that neat little stereotype you’ve used to justify your discrimination. The rest of us don’t fit so easily, though.
Fortunately, a lot of employers already realize this and hire people based on actual talent, skill, and experience.
But I can also see an employer being concerned that it’s customers might be put off by visible tattoos, facial piercings, etc. Personally, I could care less- but there are plenty of uptight squares out there!
I find it hilarious that in a thread where people argued about whether tattoos are all about “look at me!” or not, someone randomly zombies it just to post a pic of their own ink.
(Yes, I know he doesn’t represent everyone with ink. But the irony is staggering.)
If its not noticeable from the pic, it is on my calf. I can wear shorts if I want to show it, or pants if I don’t (BTW: I wouldn’t have posted it if this wasn’t MPSIMS).
I had it done there so people can see it, I wouldn’t get a tattoo somewhere that would be hidden or had people staring at a inappropriate part of my body.
I agree that some people should consider their self respect a little more on the placement of their tattoos(ie being able to hide them or not putting them near inappropriate body part that people shouldn’t be staring at).
But at the same time what makes something socially acceptable like ear piercings any different? I can’t think of any reason besides wanting to show it off that it is done, it is just one of the only cave man body modifications that stood the test of time. Sure you can remove earrings, but whats the difference between that and a hideable tattoo?
… Pull the wool out of your eyes… cause you’re a sheep…
Oh my gosh, I finally get that expression now. :smack:
I’ve got no ink on me. I’m also a sheep (hell, I enlisted in the military, willingly joining an organization that not only encourages me to dress like everyone else and get the same haircut, but requires it). I just consider myself to be a particularly self-aware sheep. There just so happens to often be a good reason for the whole flock to be running a certain direction.
That said, I don’t judge folks for having tattoos. I’m largely indifferent to them beyond “Huh, neat.” The exception is one girl I met in the Navy (a Petty Officer) who had all sorts of tattoos on her arms and back. Had me fascinated with inked girls for about a month, although I do admit to having a short-term crush on the lady. Another NCO in the military I’ve met with tattoos was a Staff Sergeant in the Air Force who has his sons’ names tattooed on his arm (above the short-sleeve line, of course) and a wedding ring pattern tattooed on his ring finger (I can’t remember, but I think he said his wife was allergic to gold). I’ve got nothing but respect for him and the way he ran things.
I’ve got a neat idea for a tattoo, a filled-in outline of a lizard on my shoulder blade, with the tail wrapping around my upper arm. What does it mean? I dunno, it just occurred to me about three years ago. A friend of mine with a couple of tattoos told me that when you get a great idea for a tattoo, you should think about it. For about two years. If it’s still a good idea, go for it.
That said, from what I’ve heard, a tattoo from a quality tattoo parlor costs a pretty penny (and a lot of ugly ones), so I’m gonna think about this cool tattoo idea for a few more years.
