These days, if somehow has a tattoo or two, maybe a few piercings, no one truly thinks or sees much of it. As soon as it gets extreme, people get marginalized and outcast.
Rap star, 50 cent recently underwent expensive and painful laser surgery to remove the tattoos on his arms in order to be able to play more than just gangster roles. Even with the treatment, scars are still present and visible (see image at right). Another rap artist, Pharrel is having his skin grown in a lab and grafted on for a cost somewhere in the mid six figures. Many other Americans today find that having large numbers of tattoos and piercings hurts their ability to find a decent job, resulting in more and more people opting into pricy treatments.
In South America, gangs are starting to do away with the heavily tattooed gangster because they cannot be nearly as effective as a non-marked person. The gangs are starting to recruit more and more young, educated, and clean cut individuals involved more in fraud and other ways to illegally profit. A tattoo marked individual is much too noticeable and has an easier time getting caught. When one sees a highly marked individual it is very difficult to not feel a level of distrust and suspicion. How hard would it really be to identify the man in the picture? and would you be wary of him if he walked into your store or approached you on the street? probably yes.
It seems the problem with extreme body markings stems simply from poor planning and foresight. It doesn’t seem like the 19-year-old kid who decides to gauge his ears past the point of no return realizes that he might not have the same mentalities a few years later. Trying to become a successful lawyer or businessperson would be much harder with giant holes in ones' ear.
When it really comes down to it, the connotative meaning of body markings is almost none. The color of skin, or a physical deformity is not supposed to have an indication on hiring someone for a position, so why should markings? It seems that at a semiotic level what body markings are saying is that a person wants to withdraw themself from the rest of the world and be part of their chosen niche group. All in all, the only difference between body markings and natural differences is that people (for the most part) have the ability to choose whether or not they want to mark their bodies. In the end this all boils down to what seems like a fundamental American principle, it is ok to judge and discriminate against people for things if they have the choice in the matter. The whole homosexual argument ultimately stems from whether or not gays have the choice. When it is a choice it is alright to bring discrimination, but when it is not it can be very difficult to cast judgment on.
With that same thought in mind, tattoos and piercings really do serve and perform a rather useful job in helping to build a community between similar people. The gangsters are brothers even more because of the markings they share. The gauged ears and tattooed arm sleeves help people associate themselves in the “scene” or “hardcore” crowd. At that same time it completely opens a person up to scrutiny by the world. People who mark themselves in an extreme fashion invite judgment and assumptions. As long as these people stay within their niche of people they can get by without hassle. Once they want to expand their world they are met with large amounts of resistance.
This all leads to my questions to you: do you think that it is alright to judge and not give a job to someone who has extreme piercings or tattoos? Also, when it comes to piercings and markings, at what point, if any, does it become too extreme and socially unacceptable?
13 comments:
Over all I do not think that tattoos or piercings should play a role when hiring someone. The only exception being if their job description includes their image. If you are hiring door to door salesman or someone to give presentation to board of directors. You might think twice about hiring someone based upon their looks including everything and not just tattoos and piercings.
Anytime someone does something to their body that can be seen by others they are opening themselves up to judgement. I don't think this is right, but it is just how our world is. Having tattoos and piercings is a way of expressing yourself and you are telling the world something about who you are and how you want to be portrayed. If someone is qualified for a job and has a lot of tattoos and piercings I don't think this should keep them from getting it. I do think this happens though and people should maybe think about the consequences of marking themselves before they go through with it.
i don't think it is ok to judge someone with piercings or tattoos because you don't know their past or why they have them. but i do understand why some employers might not want to hire someone with them because a lot of businesses and companies have a certain image they want to uphold and by hiring someone covered in tattoos and piercings everywhere can detract from that image. i think it becomes socially unacceptable when someone is covered in tattoos and then starts to dress and act in a way that only enhances the tattoos and the message they send.
I think that employers have to take into consideration the types of customers that their business attracts. Extreme body marking on one of their employees could be bad for business because customers may feel threatened (whether or not their feelings are valid). This may not be right, but in the business world, it makes sense. I think that when people choose to mark their bodies, there are choosing to present themselves in a certain way, which may hinder their professional aspirations later in life. The problem with body markings is that the message you are trying to send is often different than the one that people perceive.
Hiring anyone is discrimination. You hire someone because you think that they will perform a job better than anyone else, and you base it off of the contents of one piece of paper, and whatever research you might have done into that person's background. Hiring someone is all about discrimination.
As an employer you run a business. And you have an image to keep up. You have to be very careful about who you hire, because in the end its your butt that's on the line. How people view your employees is how people view you. If you hire a receptionist that scares your patrons, you don't HAVE any patrons.
I do think it is fair and lawful for employers to discriminate against people with tattoos. Just because such snap judgments are viewed by some as distasteful doesn't preclude a business from having the right to hire based on any factor at all. I'm sure we've all heard how many companies are beginning to do Google searches on potential employees, checking their Facebook profiles and photos and so on before they hire. They are obviously searching for evidence that an individual is not an adequate representative for their company/product. How is such research any different for judgments made about tattoos/piercings? As much as a person with tattoos might protest, a tattoo says something about who they are by its very existence, and its hard to blame employers for picking up on that.
I think it entirely depends on the job. If you are hiring for a business or financial consultant, that person will be meeting and dealing with other professionals money. And like it or not, I think tattoos show a sign of lack of responsibility and immaturity, so no I don't think the person with visible tattoos will be hired over someone with the same qualifications. Unfortunately our world is becoming more and more acceptable of excessive piercings and tattoos but when it comes to a serious, business-oriented work place, I think we are holding our tradition values of natural image and moderation in piercings.
I think that it is alright to discriminate against something in which someone has a choice, like a tattoo or a piercing. If a person is willing to make his or her body look a certain way, they should be willing to accept that they will be looked at differently, and that maybe they will not be treated the same as others who have not chosen to change their appearance.
I think you would have to take this on a case-by-case basis depending on the extremity of the tattoos and piercings. Stereotypes are there for a reason. They didn't just develop out of thin air. If I was looking to hire someone, I probably would judge them if they had extreme piercings or tattoos. If a person is looking for a respectable business job, having gouged ears isn't socially acceptable. With piercings and tattoos people have made a choice to look that way, knowing how they will come off with that look.
good question. Some of the best people I know have tattoos and interesting body piercings. It does not affect their work ethic in the slightest. That being said, there is definitely an expectation of what looks professional and what doesn't. We live in a very judgmental world, and people must understand that when they modify there body in a permanent or extreme way, there are social consequences involved. They must decide if their self-expression is worth the risk.
Let's face it. In today's corporate world appearance is an extremely important thing. I recently got to talk with the VP of marketing for the company I work for and we talked about this very thing. He said that even some of the most brilliant people, because of tattoos or extreme dress, cannot be taken seriously. You have to look the part in order to be the part. Now I know that there are some amazing people out there who certainly have extreme styles that do very well for themselves, but when HR is deciding between two candidates and one looks the part and the other does not, I would say 9 times out of 10, they will take the one who looks the part.
Body piercings and markings display a particular lifestyle. If a company is looking to hire a professional employee, someone with this sort of appearance may be the type of person they are looking for even if they don't appear to be. However, employment decisions often must be made quickly and employers must look for any indication that the person may not fit with the company. Though they cannot tell you exactly what a person is like, the appearance of tattoos is often a good indication of lifestyle and therefore will and should be taken into account when choosing employees.
I don't think that such things should play a role, but I know they do. And the reason they do is because people are more worried about what their customers or clients will say or how they will react to this person. Just like our expectation of missionaries (grooming and dressing standards) to put off the right message at the first meeting, people in business worry about that when hiring.
Post a Comment