Maybe you just need to associate with a better class of tattooed people. 
For my part, I find that in my experience people who dress like they just stepped out of a Brooks Brothers catolog are intolerant assholes, which I would definitely consider to fall under the heading of “something wrong with them.” However, I’m not going to say that if it were up to me, I’d refuse to hire someone who wears polo shirts, slacks, and loafers, purely on the basis of their appearance.
But to follow the trends, how many Harley owners have you seen lately that are weekday Dentists and fund managers, but then don the costume for the weekends?
Hint:I’ve seen a LOT.
And it’s a big jump from having a forearm tribal that peeks out of a long shirt sleeve, and this:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/36121_10150230345960377_212641675376_13212383_256594_n.jpg
Just to make myself clear, I wasn’t trying to be insulting with the “something wrong with them” comment. When I was younger I admired the older kids I knew who went for that extreme style, and spent enough time with them to realize that for a lot of them there was something wrong at home, like abusive or alcoholic parents, or something, and the style was part of that. And unfortunately, like most people with that kind of home life, a lot of them ended up doing badly.
I wasn’t trying to comment on your situation, and I realize that what I wrote might have come across badly; I’m sure that the dyed hair, etc. look is appealing to artistic people, not just burnouts, so I was only speaking to my experience.
Also, you should be aware that those guys in the Brooks Brothers outfits might have hidden full sleeve tats, and then wouldn’t you look silly thinking that they were intolerant 
Finally, face/neck tattoos reflect poorly on the judgement of the person who gets them (at least for my non-artistic, non-creative job), and so I would feel perfectly justified in not hiring someone who had one. Not that anyone with a face tattoo would ever be successful in getting past HR to even interview with me, or would be successful at this job trying to sell projects to extremely conservative clients.
I didn’t say that I *assumed *they’re intolerant–I said that in my experience, they *often *are. However, *I *try not to make assumptions about people based on what they look like and reconsider my opinions when I do catch myself prejudging.
Let’s assume that (a) you were hiring someone for a position that required absolutely no client interaction, so there’s no way the tattoo can possibly interfere with their ability to do the job, and (b) other than its location, there’s nothing tasteless about the tattoo (it’s high-quality work with no inappropriate subject matter). The only objection you could possibly have would therefore be your own personal dislike of tattoos. Would you still refuse to hire the person?
It doesn’t matter. People do and refuse to do things all the time. How often does hiring rely on networking? “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know.”
Someone with a face tattoo is trying very hard to send you a message that you are trying very hard not to receive. Personally, if someone tries that hard to send me a message, I’m open to receiving it, and I don’t consider an inability to receive the message as something admirable.
On edit, refer here to the Gary Larson cartoon with the caption saying “nature’s way of saying ‘do not touch’”
I don’t have a dislike of tattoos, I just think face/neck tattoos show that someone has very poor judgement. Maybe if I talked to them I would decide to hire them despite the obvious and clear lack of judgement written all over their face, especially if it were for a job that didn’t require judgement calls on their part. Grocery store cashier, yes. Air traffic controller, no.
I don’t have any tattoos, but I won a $100 gift certificate to a tattoo parlor in December. If I ever decide to use it, I would not get a tattoo anywhere that couldn’t be covered up easily because I believe there are more people like Cat Whisperer than
Shot From Guns in hiring positions.
And you believe that this is the way hiring should work?
There’s a difference between recognizing the reality of a situation and approving of the people who force that reality onto everyone else. I see no problem with simultaneously saying “having a visible tattoo will hurt your employment chances” *and *“people who chose not to employ someone with a visible tattoo when it won’t affect their ability to perform the job are being petty and immature.”
Why the hell should I care what other people choose to adorn their bodies with, so long as it doesn’t affect their job performance?
Oh, certainly there are. I’m just saying that we can acknowledge reality while still pointing out that the reality is silly. Like in the potluck thread, where we might complain about having to attend “optional” team-building activities on our own time, but we’ll do it anyway.
Honestly, people who are tatted and choose to hide them can be just as intolerant of people who don’t - in some cases, more so. Don’t assume that the soccer mom with Pooh on her ass is going to think that someone with a band around their upper arm wearing a short sleeved shirt is an appropriate teacher for her children. Or a hedge fund manager with an armband always covered at work by his long sleeved shirts is going to find full sleeves that peek out of cuffs appropriate.
There are so many judgments other people can make about your tattoos - justified or not. And all of us are going to make judgments - good or bad. Anything from “must be a cool person” or “great taste” to “tramp” or “criminal.” You can’t control the reactions. You can control what sort of tattoo you get where (if any) and if you choose to disclose it.
There’s ‘should’ and there’s ‘is’…don’t matter if it’s ‘right’ or not.
In fact, yea, I’m happy it’s that way sometimes. There are LOTS of qualified people that wouldn’t otherwise make it through the HR system because HR doesn’t see a specific cert or watchword. They have plenty of employment options because they’ve demonstrated results…so you have a qualitative reason for hiring, rather than hiring based on appearances.
That’s the very crux to the ‘tattoos might make less difference than you’d think in certain circles’ statement.
The problem with this topic is: it BEGS for a pat answer, when a pat answer doesn’t exist.
For the simple reason–that I have explained repeatedly–that getting a face/neck tattoo is a clear sign that a person makes poor decisions, and shouldn’t be trusted in a position that requires any sort of judgement.
Suppose you were interviewing someone for a job, and during the interview he said “by the way, I have a tendency to make stupid, irreversible decisions and I have bad judgement.” Would you hire him? What if, instead of saying it out loud, he had it tattooed on his forehead?
I disagree strongly. Whether or not something is *right *is at least as important as whether or not it happens. For example, what if tonight everyone who wanted a tattoo but was afraid to get one because of employment concerns went out and got one and refused to cover it up? Maybe suddenly a bunch of prejudiced people would be *forced *to hire people with tattoos.
There is no *objective *reason why tattoos are “inappropriate” for someone in any job, other than the prejudice of the people they work for and with. I am quite sure if we all woke up tomorrow with everyone who dislikes tattoos magically unable to see them, the world would not grind to a screeching halt when those people somehow accidentally hired someone for a job who had tattoos sticking out of their clothes that would be visible to those of us who could still see them.
This is very true.
That’s some fabulously circular reasoning you’ve got there.
Q: Why won’t you hire someone with a visible tattoo?
A: Because it demonstrates that they have poor judgement.
Q: How does it demonstrate poor judgement?
A: Because I won’t hire them.
Q: But why won’t you hire them?
A: Because it demonstrates poor judgement…
Further thought experiment for you, Evil Economist. I’m white, and let’s say I’m dating a guy who’s Black. If I were to start a thread asking if continuing with this relationship would at some point end up with me getting harassed, people said yes, and I went ahead with it anyway, would you consider that to be poor judgment on my part?
Let’s say Hypothetical Black Boyfriend (HBB) drops me off at a job interview. Would the fact that I *chose *to be in a relationship where some level of harassment and discrimination was pretty much guaranteed lead you to believe that I was *only *qualified to work as a “grocery store cashier” but not an “air traffic controller”?
IOW, should the decision to ignore potentially negative consequences specifically from people who prejudge others based on irrelevant criteria be in and of itself considered bad judgment?
If you get a prominent neck or face or other tatoo and think it couldnt possibly have an impact on your future employment, then you are either naive, socially clueless, or incapable of thinking long term. None of which are traits that most employers look for.
I’m sorry that mean old reality is so harsh, but yes, since only people with bad judgement are getting tattoos on their face, and since I don’t want to hire someone with bad judgement, I won’t hire someone with tattoos on their face.
This also applies to other things, like spitting on the interviewer during the hiring process. That’s also a bad judgement call, and can be spelled out in exactly the same manner:
Q: Why won’t you hire someone who spits on you?
A: Because it demonstrates that they have poor judgement.
Q: How does it demonstrate poor judgement?
A: Because I won’t hire them.
Q: But why won’t you hire them?
A: Because it demonstrates poor judgement..
Now you’re comparing the decision to get a face tattoo to the decision to date outside your race? You need to get a sense of perspective. I’m done talking to you.
Horrible analogy. Tattoos are something you do to yourself, that affects only yourself. Spitting on another person is so entirely different that I find you next post (quoted below) laughably ironic.
Sorry, but she’s right–there is no objective difference.
Both of them are activities that a person does in their private life that do not have any direct correlation with anything other than their willingness to put their own aesthetics before cultural backlash.
Which, by the way, is an eminently hire-able trait, IMHO–a high-quality, well-cared-for, non-offensive facial tattoo says “I will not be shy about saying you are wrong when you are wrong–it’s obvious that I reject conformity for the sake of conformity”, which is one of many traits I look for in employees.
Interesting.
I adopted interracially. We did not do so casually. When we adopted, there was a guy sending hate mail to people who adopted interracially in our city. As accepted and mainstream as interracial adoption is - it still isn’t completely accepted. We chose to adopt from Korea, in part because Asian adoption by White people is more accepted than adopting a Hispanic child (and much more accepted than adopting a Black child). Racism is alive and well in this country, and adopting a child of a different race should not be done without your eyes open. We decided it was worth it, but I highly caution people adopting (I’ve done it several times on this board) to consider the implications of race in their decision. To take a path to have an interracial family is choosing a harder path out of the gate. We’ve been fortunate and really haven’t had to deal with racial issues much at all. And he is worth it. But I adopted a child for selfish reasons, not to take on racism.
I’m don’t think that even if I got the little teeny tiny bit of static about a tattoo that I’ve gotten about interracial adoption, it would be worth it, but I’m not a tattoo aficionado. However, I also can’t imagine being as attached to body art as I am to my kid.
I also briefly dated a black man (a Fortune 100 Corporate attorney - so none of the class issues, only the race issues - I’ve come to believe that in racism, class makes a HUGE difference) - in liberal-interracial-relationship-friendly Minnesota. No, it wasn’t worth it. He was a nice guy, but there WAS flack (probably about the same amount of flack if I dated someone six inches shorter than me), and there wasn’t enough spark between us to make up for it. Maybe someone different I’d have decided it was worth it. I can imagine being as attached to body art as I was to that particular guy.
If you go into a visible tattoo with your eyes open, its a permanent commitment like adoption - not a temporary one like a few dates. Better decide right off the bat if ANY potential flack is worth it.
Or you’re the kind of person who has made a conscious decision to filter out of your life people who judge others on superficial things that can’t possibly hurt that person. Which is the kind of trait I, personally, admire. Maybe you enjoy surrounding yourself with those who (a) are exactly like you and (b) make snap judgements about people with no meaningful evidence, though. YMMV and all that.
Wrong-o. Spitting on someone else is rude, disgusting, and unhygenic. Someone getting a tattoo isn’t even in the same galaxy as someone spitting on you.
There are plenty of *objective *reasons that I wouldn’t want to be spat on. There are no *objective *reasons not to hire someone with a tattoo, other than the (circular) because it isn’t done.
Like **Zeriel **said, in both cases, you are making a decision that doesn’t affect anyone else *or *your ability to do the job, but that other people will judge you for anyway.
Exactly. This is why it’s useful to have an honest discussion about both things: whether it **will **happen *and *whether it **should **happen. If someone were to open a thread about adopting a child of another race, I’m sure you’d have no problem with being open with that person about the challenges they would face while also decrying anyone in the thread who would openly say that they’d ostracize anyone who adopted outside their own race.
Fine, let’s not talk about spitting (which was a comment on the “circular argument” thing by the way, not supposed to be comparison to tattoos). Let’s say your next interviewee shows up wearing let’s say an Ed Hardy t-shirt, open to the navel, lots of gold pendants, heavy cologne, lots of hair treatment, fake tan,basically this guy. Let’s hear your honest opinion, does this guy “have a willingness to put their own aesthetics before cultural backlash, and is the sort to reject conformity for the sake of conformity, and is thus eminently hireable?”
I would hire this guy, (assuming he changed his outfit before interviewing) for a position over a guy with a face tattoo, because whatever you can say this Jersey Shore reject’s lifestyle, at least he wasn’t stupid enough to get his style permanently tattooed on his face.
