Visible tattoos - Are they as damaging as they sound?

[fluiddruid]

@Shot_From_Guns

You’re equating your own personal aesthetic choices and reasons for not getting tattoos with those of the entire rest of the human race. Let’s say I really hate paisley.* If someone started a thread asking about the pattern, and I came in to say that I would never, ever hire a man who came to an interview wearing a paisley tie, don’t you think that would make me sound really immature and petty?

But visible tattoos aren’t the equivalent of the tie you don’t like. It’s like coming in for a job interview in shorts and a t-shirt. In some cases, nobody will care; in a lot of cases, they will and it shows a bit of a lack of judgement to presume that nobody would care.

Whether or not I personally care about tattoos (I don’t), if I’m making the decision for someone’s job, a tattoo is a negative in many circumstances. I could be worrying that my more conservative superiors will think poorly of my applicant, and by extension me; I could be concerned about contact with clients who weren’t more open-minded. As a hiring manager in my current company? Pah, I could care less. But then again I probably could care less if someone came in wearing a t-shirt either, if I thought they were really skilled and would fit in, because a) we are extremely casual in dress here, b) our culture is pretty eclectic, and c) I work pretty closely with the owner and know for a fact he’s very non-judgemental and rational. It helps I work for a very small company that has virtually no face-to-face client contact. If I was working in an average corporate environment, visible tattoos would be a concern. It’s a conscious decision weighted with more concerns than my own personal aesthetic taste.

[Soliloquy]

After my first six years, a change in management in my job required that people in my department start hiding tattoos. We’re still allowed to have them, but tattoos have to be covered. That means long sleeved uniform shirts (or long sleeved undershirts or and ace bandage over the tat under your short sleeved shirt) year round, in temps that reach (and exceed, sometimes) 105 degrees F in the summer months if you work an outdoors position.

Those already tatted up were boned. The rest of us were left to decide whether or not to get tatted up.

In my industry, the chances are nearly 100% that someone will come along and change the rule again someday, and we will be able to have visible tats again.

Some of my partners wear long sleeved undershirts with one sleeve cut off, since they’re only sleeved (tattoos) on one arm, so that they can wear a short sleeved uniform. Personally, I think that looks way goofier and less professional than tattoos, but it is within uniform regulations, and I would totally do it.

I have 19 tattoos. Despite the high number, most of them are small enough that I don’t yet consider myself tattooed as much as having 19 tattoos. All of them save one are completely invisible in a short sleeve uniform. A month or so ago I got brave and got a tiny ladybug behind my ear. So far, no one who can tell me to cover it has noticed, and I’m certainly not going to point it out. I think it’s a stupid rule.

I’m assigned to an indoors post, currently, and I’m in the process of working out a (minimum) quarter sleeve. I’m trying to decide if I want to take the leap and do a complete half or full sleeve, or a forearm piece, start wearing a one-armed undershirt, and bank on someone changing the ridiculous “hide your tattoos” rule before I ever have to work in 100 degree weather.

I have worked for my department for 11 years. All of my most visible tattoos, I got after I started there. I noticed a distinct change in the way people looked at and treated me when I specifically got the tattoo on my collarbone, and that is just a small pair of daisies. I recommend becoming gainfully employed and settled prior to making your artistic decisions, then going balls out if you want to. It’s working well for me.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@Namkcalb

What if it was a tattoo of the name of the adult child they lost in a terrorist attack?
(One man I knew had this as his first tattoo when he was in his fifties)
Come to think of it, which tatoos are too bad?

What about veterans with a tattoo to remember their unit?
What about Christians who get cross tattoos, or lesbians who have black triangle tattoos?
What about tribe members getting a tribal tattoo?

Though, I admit, some tattoos can be pretttay bad
World’s gayest nazi

I’d have to see on a case-by-case basis.

@Anaamika

I’m with you actually. You have every right to hire or not hire anyone you want…but it does seem silly. It doesn’t mean you have to hire every person with full arm tattoos that come in the door, but it seems kind of…unneccesary to give all tattoos the same treatment.

In my office there’s two of us with tattoos, and both of us you’d never know if we specifically showed you. That’s a lot different than a mohawk and you know it. But people, as evidenced in this thread, even Cat Whisperer ( Does that mean you don’t like me, CW?) equate one tattoo with all tattoos. I would equate it more to having, say, two piercings in the ear instead of one.<snip>

Again, the case-by-case basis. I don’t consider a small, almost completely hidden tattoo the same as two full sleeves and tattoos running up your neck. If I’ve given the impression that one little dot of a tattoo is the same to me as a full-body tattoo, my apologies. I still like you just fine, Anaamika.

@Shot_From_Guns

You’re equating your own personal aesthetic choices and reasons for not getting tattoos with those of the entire rest of the human race. Let’s say I really hate paisley.* If someone started a thread asking about the pattern, and I came in to say that I would never, ever hire a man who came to an interview wearing a paisley tie, don’t you think that would make me sound really immature and petty?

You’re saying, “*I *don’t like this thing, so that means no one *else *is allowed to like it, either.” You really want to encourage a world where everyone only hires people who share their exact same interests, regardless of how they impact that person’s ability to perform the job?

*Total lie. I love paisley. When people ask me my favorite color, I say paisley.<snip>
Because you’re projecting your own personal fashion sense and justifications onto every other human being on the planet. You are judging them purely on a cosmetic choice that in no way affects their ability to do the job. (I assume this is the case, because your reasoning was that you just don’t like tattoos, not that the clients they’d have to work with would freak out, or anything like that.)<snip>

You’re REALLY extrapolating here. I’m not saying what anyone else should or has to do at all; I’m just saying what I think, and what I would (probably) do if I was in a situation to be hiring someone like the OP is thinking of becoming. If people want to get lots of visible tattoos, it would be pretty naive of them to think there are no people like me in the world, who don’t particularly like tattoos.

[Marley23]

@Anaamika

Slightly off-topic, I know a friend of a friend that had her boyfriend’s name tattooed on her neck. :smack: Then, she had to try and cover it up when they inevitably broke up, and last I heard, she was attempting to get her current boyfriend’s name tattooed on it.

That’s really stupid.

What she ought to do is only date guys with the same name as her ex.

[Acid_Lamp]

Tattoos can be viewed in a positive light as well. Someone who has full sleeves of beautiful, well rendered art without objectionable material could be demonstrating the following characteristics just as easily as the rather nebulous ones described upthread:

Appreciation of the arts
Willingness to commit
Dynamic and creative personality
Individualism and self determination
Reasonable financial sense: (such tattoos do not come cheaply. It is the equivalent of a fancy suit, or luxury car. Someone who can afford that must have a reasonable stable financial status)

In a fit-the-mold corporate environment those characteristics often make a poor fit for a drone, but they are part of every CEO and entrepreneur’s toolkit. People who have such personalities are often self motivated, high energy, and always looking to challenge and improve the system. That does not mean that a tattooed person IS all those things, but rather you can look at it positively just as easily as negatively.

If you don’t care for tattooing, there is nothing wrong with that. I’d never try to convince you to get one, but looking down on someone for possessing one is the height of shallow arrogance. There is a world of difference between someone with a sleeve full of wobbly, scrawling, jailhouse garbage and one with several thousand dollars of high end art contrived and executed as a single uniform piece.

Here in America, most of the prejudice against tattoos stems from the late 50’s culture where only ex-military, bikers, and criminals bore them. Such folks were often unskilled vets or found their way into blue collar work for reasons not entirely within their control. Now things are considerably different as the generation that spurned tattooing is rapidly dying off and business do not need their dollars so much.

[nashiitashii]

@Cat_Whisperer

I’m curious - why do you think there is an ethical question here? I only see a preference.

I find your objection to tattoos in general to be one where you cannot see past the tattoo to the actual person. Mind you, I still think that visible tattoos aren’t the wisest choice for certain areas of work, but I do not actively judge people for having tattoos and it wouldn’t occur to me to apply personality traits based on simply having been tattooed. My problem with you in particular is that the tone in which you state your issue with folks who are tattooed as a problem that everyone else is supposed to agree with you or else they’re mentally deficient. Because of that alone, I would not trust you to treat people fairly if you happened to find out that someone is tattooed, visible or not.

@Omniscient

This statement is utterly ridiculous. You’re equating a distaste for tattoos with prejudice in the same vein as racism or bigotry? Tattoos are the equivalent of a hair style or a style of dressing. It’s cosmetic. It’s not a race, religion, physical defect or sexual preference.

Not hiring someone with a tattoo is like not hiring someone who has a mohawk or someone who shows up for a job interview in a polyester leisure suit. Here in the real world with real people, a world where potential clients and customers can be as capricious as the weather, placing an emphasis on professional appearance is often a requirement. You can piss and moan all you want about how unfair that it, but it’s reality. You aren’t born with a tattoo any more than you’re born with pink streaks in your hair. The choices people make in how they represent themselves is reflective of how they’ll represent your business. You damn well better believe that companies take this stuff very seriously, that will never change in our lifetimes.

I would equate it with folks who won’t hire someone who has naturally kinky or curly hair and does not straighten it for work-- it’s part of the look, but it doesn’t actively interfere with ability to get the job done. It’s just not part of the “majority preferred” look. I’m not saying that I’m “oppressed” by any measure as a tattooed person, or that folks who are visibly tattooed did not choose to show their preference to the world-- but it strikes me as unbelievably short-sighted to assume that all tattooed people are the same, which is the impression I get from Cat Whisperer’s posts.

@Anaamika

I’m with you actually. You have every right to hire or not hire anyone you want…but it does seem silly. It doesn’t mean you have to hire every person with full arm tattoos that come in the door, but it seems kind of…unneccesary to give all tattoos the same treatment.

In my office there’s two of us with tattoos, and both of us you’d never know if we specifically showed you. That’s a lot different than a mohawk and you know it. But people, as evidenced in this thread, even Cat Whisperer ( Does that mean you don’t like me, CW?) equate one tattoo with all tattoos. I would equate it more to having, say, two piercings in the ear instead of one.

You’ve said more or less how I feel about it-- the fact that there’s an assumption that any tattooing is equivalent to the person having questionable character is really the crux of my issue with the argument. There’s a huge difference between something small/easily covered/tasteful and an electric ice cream cone/distracting visible tattoo, but she apparently equates all tattoos as bad with a tone of “and you should too” thrown in.

@Shot_From_Guns

You’re saying, “*I *don’t like this thing, so that means no one *else *is allowed to like it, either.” You really want to encourage a world where everyone only hires people who share their exact same interests, regardless of how they impact that person’s ability to perform the job?[/SIZE]

This. Absolutely.

[MLS]

Personally, I hate tatoos. It creeps me out to have to look at them. I would not wish to infringe on anybody’s right to employment, but if I have a choice of dealing with a non-tatooed person instead that’s the choice I’d make. Therefore I can understand why an employer might select against it in certain circumstances.

I know of two young women who are now seriously regretting forearm tattoos obtained a decade earlier. The cost of removal is extraordinarily high, and in one case might even be impossible. And yes, they can be covered by a long-sleeved shirt. Problem is, sometimes you don’t want to wear a long-sleeved shirt.

Of course, if you’re planning to restrict your employment to careers where such “decoration” is common, my opinions on the subject are superfluous.

ETA: I feel the same way about body piercings except more so. I realize this is probably my problem more than the other person’s, and I try not to be obvious or insulting. But if everyone in a particular establishment had body piercings I’d just choose to go elsewhere, knowing they probably are looking for a different demographic anyway.

Also, this is not the same as not wanting to deal with a particular skin color, hair type, or general body type.

[nashiitashii]

@MLS

Personally, I hate tattoos. It creeps me out to have to look at them. I would not wish to infringe on anybody’s right to employment, but if I have a choice of dealing with a non-tattooed person instead that’s the choice I’d make. Therefore I can understand why an employer might select against it in certain circumstances.

This is why many folks choose not to have visible tattoos, myself included. There’s still a very narrow set of criteria agreed upon as to what looks professional, and for a lot of folks, that includes things like hair length and texture, which is what I had been getting at earlier. Depending upon how strict folks are with how short or straight hair must be to look “professional”, it can get into issues of racial/ethnic prejudice. Luckily enough, we are trending away from the stricter set in a lot of work environments, as short “business lady” hair is really unflattering on a lot of women.

ETA: I feel the same way about body piercings except more so. I realize this is probably my problem more than the other person’s, and I try not to be obvious or insulting.

Probably? I understand your feelings on this-- a person with a very large amount of visible body modification outside of fields I expect it in* tend to distract me more readily. However, it’s not really my business to express my feelings about the modifications unless asked my opinion-- and neither of us appear to be telling folks in person that are heavily modified that it bothers us.

*Those working in the body modification (tattooing/piercing/branding/scarification), music,

[QUOTE=Cat Whisperer]
If I’ve given the impression that one little dot of a tattoo is the same to me as a full-body tattoo, my apologies.
[/QUOTE]
Feel free to retract some of my earlier statements, as I was basing my opinion on said impression above. Though your opinion on tattooing is valid, it rarely serves a purpose other than to make folks go :rolleyes: when injected into a lot of the threads in which it’s expressed because it’s often unhelpful. Most if not all of us are aware that some folks don’t like tattoos, but threads like this often come up as a “where’s the line and should I cross it?” issue, not a “do you personally like this aspect of our current society?” one. It’d be a little bit like me coming into every thread on cauliflower recipes and telling folks that I abhor cauliflower.

[StusBlues]

@Fionn

My dad used to always say that he would never hire anyone with a tattoo, but I don’t know how many people turned down for that reason, and he wouldn’t have been hiring programmers, lawyers or sales reps. For everyone who says they wouldn’t hire someone with a tattoo, how many people have you personally not hired because they had a tattoo?

Bogus argument. Many if not most folks in the position to hire people will not come out and say that they’re making their decisions based on someone’s ink. It’s more subtle than that.

And I will go along with the majority here and say that you’re definitely limiting your work (and, to an extent, social) universe by getting the type of tat the OP is describing. If you don’t care, fine, but I think the input here demonstrates it’s an issue. Not a HUGE issue as it may have been thirty years ago, but an issue.

[Shot_From_Guns]

@Anaamika

Slightly off-topic, I know a friend of a friend that had her boyfriend’s name tattooed on her neck.

Oh god, kiss of death. A name tattoo is a guaranteed relationship killer.

@fluiddruid

But visible tattoos aren’t the equivalent of the tie you don’t like. It’s like coming in for a job interview in shorts and a t-shirt.

No, it’s really not, at all. It’s like coming into a job interview with a non-Anglo name. How would you feel about someone who proudly stated that if it came down to two candidates, Susan and LaShonette, they’d hire Susan? Because, hey, an “ethnic” name makes some people uncomfortable, and it’s often a sign that the person was raised in and identifies with that culture, which is out of the mainstream.

@Cat_Whisperer

You’re REALLY extrapolating here. I’m not saying what anyone else should or has to do at all; I’m just saying what I think, and what I would (probably) do if I was in a situation to be hiring someone like the OP is thinking of becoming.

No, you are absolutely saying what other people should do. You’ve explicitly said that, if you had the power, you would withhold a job from someone who was qualified for it if they had visible tattoos; that’s using a sanction in order to influence behavior. You have made a personal choice, which is fine, but then you’re *also *trying to punish other people for having made a *different *choice. Let’s say I saw a Good Charlotte album sticking up out of the top of the purse of a woman I was interviewing; do you think it would be fair of me to deny her the job because I think it’s a shitty band and demonstrates that she’s immature?

If people want to get lots of visible tattoos, it would be pretty naive of them to think there are no people like me in the world, who don’t particularly like tattoos.

I think this “argument” is kind of silly. Let’s try applying it to some other things, to which you presumably have no objection, to see how it works as a justification for denying someone employment:

If people want to date someone of another race, it would be pretty naive of them to think there are no people like me in the world, who don’t particularly like interracial couples.

If women want to work outside the home, it would be pretty naive of them to think there are no people like me in the world, who don’t particularly like women who aren’t homemakers.

If people want to be openly homosexual, it would be pretty naive of them to think there are no people like me in the world, who don’t particularly like same-sex couples.

“I have an irrational prejudice about something that doesn’t affect a person’s capacity to perform a job, so everyone else should be okay with that” is a really weird argument to try to be making. And I don’t think it associates you with particularly savory people.

A lot of the arguments against tattoos here are really circular, too. Professional people don’t have tattoos, so they won’t hire you if you have them. And because they won’t hire you if you have them, there are no professional people with tattoos.

@Marley23

What she ought to do is only date guys with the same name as her ex.

I see what you did there.

[Zeriel]

@Cat_Whisperer

I’m curious - why do you think there is an ethical question here? I only see a preference.

It’s a question of ethics, IMHO, because you’re making a judgement relating to employment using a criteria drawn solely from the personal non-work, non-education life of the potential employee in question. And worse, you’re making it based on a personal preference masquerading as a concern for someone’s judgement in getting a common bodily adornment.

I’ll be honest, here. I try to go out of my way to not even notice tattoos or the lack thereof in hiring. I would only express a preference against bad judgement–good tattoo with non-offensive subject matter, you’re in. Incredibly poor-quality or poorly-cared-for tattoo, you’re on the fence. Tattoo image in bad taste (white power, swastika, anything related to swearing or violence), you’re out.

[Zeriel]

NETA: And I say this as someone who’s needle-phobic and personally doesn’t like 99% of the tattoos I see out there–but that doesn’t make them less well-rendered or artistically chosen, it means I have a personal aesthetic preference that I refuse to allow to affect my judgement of people as much as humanly possible.

[Shot_From_Guns]

Zeriel, thanks for succinctly explaining what I’ve been having problems putting words to.

ETA: Except I would have said “a criterion.”

[runcible_spoon]

@nashiitashii

Though your opinion on tattooing is valid, it rarely serves a purpose other than to make folks go :rolleyes: when injected into a lot of the threads in which it’s expressed because it’s often unhelpful. Most if not all of us are aware that some folks don’t like tattoos, but threads like this often come up as a “where’s the line and should I cross it?” issue, not a “do you personally like this aspect of our current society?” one. It’d be a little bit like me coming into every thread on cauliflower recipes and telling folks that I abhor cauliflower.

No, it’s like coming into a thread asking “Will serving only cauliflower for dinner make my dinner parties less popular” and saying “Yes, I will not eat cauliflower”. It’s exactly what was asked for - in fact, to quote the OP: “What is your experience with visible tattoos? Do you have any yourself? What is your opinion of them?”
(bolding mine).

@Shot_From_Guns

No, it’s really not, at all. It’s like coming into a job interview with a non-Anglo name. How would you feel about someone who proudly stated that if it came down to two candidates, Susan and LaShonette, they’d hire Susan? Because, hey, an “ethnic” name makes some people uncomfortable, and it’s often a sign that the person was raised in and identifies with that culture, which is out of the mainstream.

Except that nobody is born with a tattoo. Not hiring someone because of a personal choice is a totally different issue. Much more akin to not hiring someone for their outfit, or hairstyle.

@Shot_From_Guns

No, you are absolutely saying what other people should do. You’ve explicitly said that, if you had the power, you would withhold a job from someone who was qualified for it if they had visible tattoos; that’s using a sanction in order to influence behavior. You have made a personal choice, which is fine, but then you’re *also *trying to punish other people for having made a *different *choice. Let’s say I saw a Good Charlotte album sticking up out of the top of the purse of a woman I was interviewing; do you think it would be fair of me to deny her the job because I think it’s a shitty band and demonstrates that she’s immature?

I think you’re extrapolating too much. There’s a huge difference between ‘I don’t want to hire you’ and ‘I think you’re a bad person’. Not hiring someone is not equivalent to punishing them. Nor is it necessarily an attempt to influence behavior - although I’ll admit that it certainly can be (I’m thinking of the old ‘get a haircut, hippy!’ thing).

To be clear, I’m actually quite fond of tattoos - I don’t have any myself, but I’ve seen some great ones, and (cliched though it is), some of my best friends have tattoos. On the other hand, I think mullets are hideous, I think anyone who would get one (in San Francisco, where they’re not really common) is either a giant douchebag or trying way too hard to be ironic (possibly both). I fully realize that that may not be the case, and if I happen to get to know you better, I’m perfectly willing to change my mind. But if I’m interviewing you, I don’t really have the luxury of getting to know you as a person; I need to make a decision, and having a mullet is going to count against you a little bit. Probably not enough to override bigger can-you-do-the-job issues, but in the hypothetical ‘two equally qualified candidates’, well, yeah, it’ll cost you a job.

[Fionn]

@StusBlues

Bogus argument. Many if not most folks in the position to hire people will not come out and say that they’re making their decisions based on someone’s ink. It’s more subtle than that.

It wasn’t intended as an argument, just to gather data points about how many people backed up what they were saying with their conduct.

[CrazyCatLady]

@Shot_From_Guns

If…I came in to say that I would never, ever hire a man who came to an interview wearing a paisley tie, don’t you think that would make me sound really immature and petty?

Except that’s not what she said. She said if she had to choose between a candidate with a paisley tie and one with a striped tie, she’d lean toward the one with the striped tie.

You are judging them purely on a cosmetic choice that in no way affects their ability to do the job.

Yeah. That’s what typically happens when you have more than one qualified candidate for a job, unless one person is just far and away more qualified than everyone else. If you have two people who are pretty equal in terms of education and work experience, the next big factor becomes ability to fit into the corporate culture. If that seems pretty equal, you’re left with making the decision based on either pretty picayune aesthetic/personality things, or just tossing a coin. That’s why they periodically have those studies that show good-looking people are more likely to get hired than equally-qualified less-attractive people.

[nashiitashii]

@runcible_spoon

No, it’s like coming into a thread asking “Will serving only cauliflower for dinner make my dinner parties less popular” and saying “Yes, I will not eat cauliflower”. It’s exactly what was asked for - in fact, to quote the OP: “What is your experience with visible tattoos? Do you have any yourself? What is your opinion of them?”
(bolding mine).

Thing is, the “I hate tattoos-- they look like scribbling” comment is a one-trick pony of hers that gets pulled out for most tattoo threads, regardless of “I want your opinion” or “I’m here to share about them and/or get tips on what to look for” thread type. It gets annoying after a while, especially when paired with her regular threadshitting in tattoo advice threads.

[fluiddruid]

@Shot_From_Guns

No, it’s really not, at all. It’s like coming into a job interview with a non-Anglo name. How would you feel about someone who proudly stated that if it came down to two candidates, Susan and LaShonette, they’d hire Susan? Because, hey, an “ethnic” name makes some people uncomfortable, and it’s often a sign that the person was raised in and identifies with that culture, which is out of the mainstream.

So a personal aesthetic choice is not comparable to a different personal aesthetic choice, but is more comparable to one’s ethnicity and the name chosen for you at birth? Got it.

[Lukeinva]

When I see someone with a tattoo I think to myself, that person made a bad decision. Unless they are a lifer in the military or the freak in a freak show. Another thing, when I hear someone defending tattoos they are tattooed. Never do I hear an un-tattooed person defend tattoos.

One summer at the beach I saw a guy in his 20’s with a bar-code the size of your hand tattooed across the back of his neck. That was a bad decision. Imo.

[Guinastasia]

You know, I’d be willing to bet that a lot of you who are anti-tattoo and say, "well, I wouldn’t hire someone with one, probably know people with ink, and you HAVE hired people with them. You just aren’t aware of it, because it’s not where you can see it.