Poll: Body Modification : Conformity Vs Individuality

[DailonCmann]

I've noticed a lot of people starting petitions online to add tattoo and body modifications to the Equal Opportunity law regarding hiring practices. This means that regardless of placement, amount, and content, employers would be not be allowed to turn some one away due to tattoos.
This, at best strikes me as a remarkable foolish way to throw a blanket law that would admit every tattoo has equal. I find three problems with this way of thinking.

1) It lacks what the modern workplace considers professional. No matter what you consider to be professional and what skills you have, it comes down to what the guy who has the money thinks. You may doing a service for him or her, but you need money a lot more than the company needs you.

2) Tattoos and body mods serve to distance yourself from the mainstream. No matter what your intention for getting a body modification, it serves a latent function of removing you from what society deems "Normal." You alter not only your body, but the opinion of others. Sure you can go, " What do I care about society?" but it's a two way street. Society is perfectly capable of rejecting you in turn. And hence, trouble finding a job.

3) Every tattoo would be acceptable for every job. There's no scale to measure what would measure what tattoos and body mods are acceptable for what job. The twenty year old woman with the butterfly on her ankle is on the same level as the guy with tentacle rape being preformed on Asian girls on his face for a teaching job. It would be illegal to discriminate between both. Also, gang tattoos or tattoos that are ideologically offensive would be permissible. Should a person with a swastika or KKK tattoo be allowed to work a fast food job and represent that company?

I don't have a problem with people who modify your body, but to say that it's on the same level as race, sexual orientation, and handicaps, which are visible but not a choice or religion, which is a choice but not visible, shows a lack of awareness of what you've done.

 

[DugMachine]

I've already been rejected from 3 jobs for having a triforce on my wrist. Sucks :/

 

[FalloutJack]

That depends. Does this include having my brain transferred to a full-prosthetic body that looks like it can eat a tank and is taller than most basketball players?

 

[Smertnik]

The instant I read the title I thought of DE-like augmentations. But then I reminded myself that we don't actually live in the future yet

Anyway, the only problem with tattoos, piercings and such arises when your job is dealing with other people face to face, as I see it.

 

[Rowan93]

Well, yeah, obviously a blanket law would be dumb, but something with a degree of nuance would be a good move.

On that note, there should be an intermediate option in your poll (also, a "none of the above" one).

 

[GrandmaFunk]

2) Tattoos and body mods serve to distance yourself from the mainstream.

While this definitely used to be true, in this day and age it often feels like getting a tattoo is more mainstream than not getting one.

In fact, I'd say it's even lost some of it's counter-culture appeal.

maybe mainstream is the wrong word here, but in the average urban center I'd say a 20something is as likely to have a tattoo as to not have one.

 

[Phasmal]

Obviously companies should be allowed to use their discretion when it comes to tattoos and body mods. If its just some little thing, or easily concealable then it shouldn't matter, but I imagine people getting massive tattoos or tattoos on their face expect people to notice it and they will probably be treated differently for it. Might suck for them, but that is just life.

 

[MarkDavis94]

I suppose if someone has offense tattoo's then employers should definately be able to consider not giving someone a job because of that. However if tattoo's can be covered up there is no reason to turn someone a way.

But I notice a lot of people are getting tattoo's mainly because thats the thing to do. A lot of people claim they are 'designing their chest piece', and everyone single one has two swallows either side of their chest with some song lyrics in the middle which are apparantly 'personal' to them.

If somebody likes tattoo's theres nothing really to stop them from getting them but they have to take into account the fact that not everyone likes them, so if people are concerned about getting a job, they should be concealable.

I don't get ear lobe stretching though, its vile.

 

[torzath]

Tasteful tattoos or easily covered tattoos shouldn't be an issue, but I'd still say leave it the employers because I don't want a legal defintion of what tasteful is.

 

[superbatranger]

Well, it should be up to each company, because they all must maintain an image. But, should I be denied work just because I plan on having my arms full-sleeved in tattoos? No, especially when, unless you believe in Creationism, neither sleeve would offend anyone.

 

[Lieju]

3) Every tattoo would be acceptable for every job. There's no scale to measure what would measure what tattoos and body mods are acceptable for what job. The twenty year old woman with the butterfly on her ankle is on the same level as the guy with tentacle rape being preformed on Asian girls on his face for a teaching job. It would be illegal to discriminate between both. Also, gang tattoos or tattoos that are ideologically offensive would be permissible. Should a person with a swastika or KKK tattoo be allowed to work a fast food job and represent that company?

I don't think that in those cases them being tattoed is the problem; it's the imagery and ideology they chose to display. It would be the same if they'd wear shirts with those pictures, or yelled rude things to people.

I don't think tattoos or other body-modifications should be really considered separately from the overall way you present yourself.

This means that regardless of placement, amount, and content, employers would be not be allowed to turn some one away due to tattoos.

Would it? I agree that just having a tattoo is not a good enough reason not to hire someone, but the amount (and content) they display might.

 

[GrandmaFunk]

on the topic of full sleeves(and not covering them up), it's not simply about "being judged" or the design being offensive...

it comes down to: would wearing a shirt with the same designs be considered appropriate for the position's dress code?

if the answer is no: now you know why you won't be hired for that position.

 

[DoPo]

Well, it should be left up to the employer. Being "equal" or not is pretty stupid in this case - you want some sort of corporate image or maybe you have an internal code, so why shouldn't you enforce it. I don't think a person sporting a full face tattoo would be equal to one who doesn't when considering the job of salesman. It's nothing to do with employers being biased - most people would be put off by this. However, if the person is selling at an alternative store of some sort, then it wouldn't really matter one way or another.

Besides, most tattoos are not an issue as they can easily be hidden. I know lots of people who talk passionately about tattoos but all of them end up getting something easily hidden.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

I feel it should be left to the discretion of the employer.

You can't choose your race, or gender, or national origin - which are things equal opportunity law protects. You can however choose whether or not to undergo body modification, and if you choose to do it, you get to carry the weight of your decision. If you go into something like that without thinking about the consequences, it's your own fault. Take some responsibility, because it's not the rest of society's fault that you didn't think about your own future.

The monkey wrench that gets thrown into my stance is religion... another thing protected by equal opportunity law, and something that arguably is a choice. But that's a massive can of worms that's best left to be opened in the R&P section. But to be brief... if there's someone sitting at a customer service desk following their employer's dress code, I'm not going to know outright what religion they are just from looking at them.

 

[GigaHz]

Snip

I agree with your opinion completely. Anyone who thinks all body modifications and tattoos are on the same level has probably absorbed a fair amount of ink into their brain.

Businesses have a right to uphold an image that they think is or isn't acceptable. If I go to a fancy restaurant, I don't expect to be served by a gentleman with spacers in both ears, tattoos littered across his arms, and a nose ring. But, however, I know that there are restaurants that are more than happy employing those who choose to look like that. So, I would say that if they would like to remain as a server, they should either look for employers who are comfortable with their image or find a way to cover themselves up so that they appear as if they side with a company's image. It is not discrimination, it is a matter of valid preference. They have to worry about keeping and attracting customers. YOU don't.

The person getting the tattoo or piercing should know the consequences. If you work in an industry that is creative, it is likely to be more accepting of whatever you choose to do with your body. Assuming you have a job like that, feel free to go as crazy as your threshold allows. Otherwise, you should use your adult brain and exercise what you think may or may not be deemed acceptable to your average employer.

The monkey wrench that gets thrown into my stance is religion... another thing protected by equal opportunity law, and something that arguably is a choice. But that's a massive can of worms that's best left to be opened in the R&P section. But to be brief... if there's someone sitting at a customer service desk following their employer's dress code, I'm not going to know outright what religion they are just from looking at them.

Ehhh... That's kind of a grey area. A lot of people are born into their given faith. Their only real choices being to leave their faith or find a new one. It's not as easy for certain cultures that base their entire families around their faiths. It's most common in Asian countries. You leave the faith, it's almost on par with leaving the family.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

Ehhh... That's kind of a grey area. A lot of people are born into their given faith. Their only real choices being to leave their faith or find a new one. It's not as easy for certain cultures that base their entire families around their faiths. It's most common in Asian countries. You leave the faith, it's almost on par with leaving the family.

Yeah... that's why I said that it's arguably a choice... in that one is capable of choosing to leave or change religion, regardless of how hard the choice is to make. In other words... if you were more concerned with getting a job than being a part of that faith, you could make the choice (hard as it may be), to leave the faith. It's not really something you can do with race or gender or where you happened to be born.

But I do actually support religion being protected under equal opportunity, I don't want to give the impression that I want it removed. A person of faith can still perform their job without shoving their faith in other people's faces. A person with tattoos concealed under their clothing can still perform their job without shoving whatever it is they're trying to show with those tattoos into other people's faces, and thus, don't need to be protected. A person who chose to get tattoos that cannot be concealed by clothing chose to accept the consequences of their actions, and thus, also don't need to be protected. That's the way I see it, anyway.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Obviously if you have an offensive tattoo, such as one depicting tentacle rape or a swastika (as so many people do) that's a different issue. However, if you have a perfectly inoffensive pattern tattood on you, the fact that it is completely covering your face should not be considered. Ultimately people don't like such tattoos because they look hideous, but since when were you allowed to refuse someone employment just because they're hideous? That's ridiculous.

 

[DoPo]

Ultimately people don't like such tattoos because they look hideous, but since when were you allowed to refuse someone employment just because they're hideous? That's ridiculous.

When they will communicate with other people. And those other people will consider them hideous, too. Also consider: models.

Sure, it doesn't matter for all jobs whether you're hideous or not. For example, I couldn't care less if my car mechanic had tentacles for legs, much less a tattoo on his face, if he can do the job done. However a tattooed salesman/waiter/something? No, thanks, I'll pass. Maybe, maybe not, but my first instinct is to pass.

 

[GrandmaFunk]

since when were you allowed to refuse someone employment just because they're hideous?

well, you're allowed to refuse employment to someone if you consider their poor hygiene or grooming doesn't meet the standards of the position, this is along the same lines.

 

[manic_depressive13]

well, you're allowed to refuse employment to someone if you consider their poor hygiene or grooming doesn't meet the standards of the position, this is along the same lines.

This is a genuine question: Are you allowed to refuse employment to someone with a deformity? Say, if they had a cleft lip or something? If not, I think that shows "it's ugly and makes people uncomfortable" shouldn't cut it. I think rather than validating the shallowness of society we should judge people by their performance and not by their appearance, whether congenital or self inflicted.

Besides, hygeine is quite different. Having a wash is far easier than removing a tattoo. Some might say you should have to pay for the consequences of making a harmless mistake your entire life. Those people are jerks. It's probably easier for ex convicts to get employment than people with visible tattoos.