Should we be allowed to judge?: Tattoos

[Ferbian]

Having a tattoo is a very common thing in todays world, but going back 20-30 years ago you'd most commonly only see the "tough" guys/girls, the people who were getting into crimes, or being associated with bad things having a tattoo.

But today when it's such a very common thing, a guy with a tattoo is still looked to as somewhat of a trouble maker, to say the least by:

1. the elder people
2. The boss of a company with a reputation

This is very focusing on the whole "boss" part, due to the fact that, well to say the least I've always had people telling me if I was ever to be getting a tattoo (which I have, this is something I was told prior to getting it) that I should limit it to places where it's visibility is limited, due to the reputation and prejudice of people when hiring people with clearly visible tattoos.

So I ask you, should we really be allowed to judge someone for having a tattoo?

Should we be allowed to label someone a influentially bad person when for the majority of times is not the case?

Should we be allowed to decline someone for a job solely due to the fact that he has a cleanly visible tattoo?

Personally I think that due to the widespread popularity of tattoos in todays world, we shouldn't be allowed to judge, and we should never have been allowed to judge in any way for wanting a tattoo, have chosen to get a tattoo, or anything remotely associated with it, due to the fact that when it all comes down to it, it's body art, and has absolutely no influence on the person we are on the street, at work, at home or on the Internet.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

No

No

and

No.

Its amazing this manner of thought still presists in the year 2010. Its just a fucking tattoo, stop being a damn idiot. Ok, so should we hire the guy with Neo Nazi and KKK tats to work the front counter of Popeye's chicken or KFC? Probably not. On average though, its just a means of expression, wether they hold deep meaning, or are simply artistic. Put the bibles and bolt-action rifles away, and join the rest of us in fucking reality, please.

 

[Ferbian]

That's exactly my point Norcal, sure you're most likely allowed to be a little bit judgmental on the whole fact that someone is wearing a Swastika on his arm, or where he choose to apply it, but other than that, things that aren't directly offensive, considered racial, or have any connection to something that could prove to piss a lot of people off, should not be allowed to be judged.

One of the main things that kept me determined on expanding my tattoo to a sleeve (it's not a sleeve yet, it will be) is the fact that I had my uncle (who's a huge tattoo guy himself) tell me that if they're not gonna hire you just because you have a visible tattoo rather than hiring you for your abilities, then you shouldn't be working there in the first place.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

So I ask you, should we really be allowed to judge someone for having a tattoo?

Should we judge someone who has piercings or wear their hair a certain way? Hell No. It's individualism.

Should we be allowed to label someone a influentially bad person when for the majority of times is not the case?

Shouldn't judge people on appearances anyways. I'm saying this right now- people that do so are hypocrites. They worry about what others are doing with their lives instead of minding their own business and letting people be people. These are the same kind of people that are really the shit stirrers.

Should we be allowed to decline someone for a job solely due to the fact that he has a cleanly visible tattoo?

All depends on the ink in general I think. Now I believe in the freedoms of tattin up anywhere and just about everywhere-Hell there are still tribes out there that wear ink all over themselves. That's a right of passage. But at the workplace I feel it is important on two things:

1. Where you plan on working.
2. Where this tattoo resides/What the tattoo is.

If I wanted to work at Burger King or some food outlet, it really shouldn't matter where my ink is because I will most likely flipping burgers where others won't see me anyways. But if it so happened that I had a snake tattoo on the side of my face or a rebel flag on my forehead....I'm well aware that I wouldn't be taken seriously as a lawyer or a stockbroker.

Not saying it's idiotic...but seriously most wouldn't want to visit Dr. Cult if he had SEX GOD on his neck. That's just how the world works sadly.

Personally I think that due to the widespread popularity of tattoos in todays world, we shouldn't be allowed to judge, and we should never have been allowed to judge in any way for wanting a tattoo, have chosen to get a tattoo, or anything remotely associated with it, due to the fact that when it all comes down to it, it's body art, and has absolutely no influence on the person we are on the street, at work, at home or on the Internet.

And body art is what it all comes down to- the fact YOU have control over YOUR body. That's why people bitch in my opinion. Maybe deep down they wish they could have gotten a piercing or a tat but back in their time it was literally uncouth and regarded with the highest distaste. Who knows?

As for companies...I try to look at all angles. But I am still deeply in favor of tattoos and I wouldn't give a crap where people wanted to put them. Hopefully time will tell when tattoos and the like can be respected in all walks of life.

Hell, it's just a picture. Or words.

 

[The Big Gunnzbowski]

I hear this argument alot working in a bank... personally, I think it's an image society has painted and a majority of people will judge you based on this. Same with the argument we have been having on tipping vs not tipping. I think it all goes back to the era when tattoos were only seen on Biker gangs and Charles Manson... If you had a tattoo, you were a rebel/bad guy/gang member, etc... That stigma has carried over with the people from that era. I'm willing to bet though, that once our generation is the one in charge, you'll see shit like that float away into history.

 

[SalvIsWin]

So I ask you, should we really be allowed to judge someone for having a tattoo?

Should we be allowed to label someone a influentially bad person when for the majority of times is not the case?

Should we be allowed to decline someone for a job solely due to the fact that he has a cleanly visible tattoo?

Should we be allowed to judge? Sure. Should you judge? No. At one time, it was more reasonable to be wary of those with tattoo's, because people would think they were trouble makers, or had been in jail. Like you said, they are extremely common, a lot of people have them, but that trouble maker stereotype persists, and some new ones have developed.

Should we be allowed to decline some-one for a job based on a tattoo? Yes. If an employer really doesn't want to employ you because of a visible tattoo, they could come up with any number of other reasons to fire you during probation. If for what ever reason they don't like tattoos, it's their business and it's their call, I don't see why they should forced to accept you.

A smart business man probably knows that there are a lot of people uncomfortable with tattoos, and uncomfortable around those people. Why risk hurting your business by taking the risk on an employee with a visible tattoo if there is another qualified candidate without one? Employers shouldn't be forced to hire any one they don't want to, it's not their job to educate others on the types of people that have tattoos, or on the false stereotypes.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

I don't care if someone has a tattoo or not. In fact, I usually don't judge period. Only when people turn their nose up at me do I play the shame card on them for all of the shit they do or have done.

 

[Jonnie Walker]

Well, in today's world, it isn't a big deal at all to have a tattoo. I have a few myself, actually. And they aren't so they aren't easy to see, because I have MARSHALL, my last name, across my knuckles. But, you can tell if someone is stupid by getting a tattoo. My brother goes to school with a girl who has a tattoo that says "Only me god can judge me." To be 14 and get a tattoo like that, you are fucking ******ed. And like Norcal said, if someone has a Nazi/KKK tattoo, you would have to have an "Only me god can judge me tattoo" to think that they are nice people. But to not hire someone because of a regular tattoo, is dumb. It's not the 50's anymore, it's 20andfucking10.

 

[Ferbian]

Should we be allowed to decline some-one for a job based on a tattoo? Yes. If an employer really doesn't want to employ you because of a visible tattoo, they could come up with any number of other reasons to fire you during probation. If for what ever reason they don't like tattoos, it's their business and it's their call, I don't see why they should forced to accept you.

Sure, it's his opinion whether he likes it or not, but should he really be allowed to be put in a situation where he can basically tell someone to go fuck themselves (to put it rudely) because of a tattoo? that's not fair unless it's discriminating in any form of way, which for the majority of times, I wouldn't consider a tribal to be anywhere near discriminating or offensive, but I still get told that I could get a job decline because of it, and I find that to be bullshit.

And sure, they shouldn't be forced but as I said, I find it ridiculous that they're put in a position of power where they can decline you because of a so called permanent drawing.

A smart business man probably knows that there are a lot of people uncomfortable with tattoos, and uncomfortable around those people. Why risk hurting your business by taking the risk on an employee with a visible tattoo if there is another qualified candidate without one? Employers shouldn't be forced to hire any one they don't want to, it's not their job to educate others on the types of people that have tattoos, or on the false stereotypes.

That's exactly the point I'm asking, because of the amount of people that are uncomfortable with a tattoo, I ask if we're really in a position to judge that and be uncomfortable with it, if the lack of comfortability wasn't there in the common non tattooed person, then the business man wouldn't be in a position to deny anybody because of it, because it doesn't hurt his business

And a tattoo shouldn't be put in a position where it's judged to be hurtful towards a business, because, again, it's a mere drawing, unless it's offensive, there's really no hurt to come out of the business unless you're already a person who's judgmental or a person who's against tattoos

And exactly that is judging people by the outside except for their abilities and the inside, their personalities etc. something that the majority of the world does to a certain degree, and gets bashed for on a regular basic, I hear it everyday someone complaining over teenage girls judging teenage boys through looks rather than personality beforehand.

So if it's such a problem for us that someone judges by looks, which could resort to racism through that, why shouldn't we be allowed to put out some kind of complain for the fact that people are judging a tattoo? a artistic scar so to say.

 

[LigerBomb]

Sure, it's his opinion whether he likes it or not, but should he really be allowed to be put in a situation where he can basically tell someone to go fuck themselves (to put it rudely) because of a tattoo? that's not fair unless it's discriminating in any form of way, which for the majority of times, I wouldn't consider a tribal to be anywhere near discriminating or offensive, but I still get told that I could get a job decline because of it, and I find that to be bullshit.

A privately owned business can hire and fire whomever they choose for whatever reasons they see fit. You say it's not fair, and bullshit but it's not. You decided to modify your appearance as you deemed appropriate at the time and therefor these are the consequences you may have to bare as a result.

And sure, they shouldn't be forced but as I said, I find it ridiculous that they're put in a position of power where they can decline you because of a so called permanent drawing.

You find it ridiculous that a manger and/or owner has the power to hire and fire?

That's exactly the point I'm asking, because of the amount of people that are uncomfortable with a tattoo, I ask if we're really in a position to judge that and be uncomfortable with it, if the lack of comfortability wasn't there in the common non tattooed person, then the business man wouldn't be in a position to deny anybody because of it, because it doesn't hurt his business

Yes I can be uncomfortable with whatever I so choose especially if it's a natural reaction to something I see.

And a tattoo shouldn't be put in a position where it's judged to be hurtful towards a business, because, again, it's a mere drawing, unless it's offensive, there's really no hurt to come out of the business unless you're already a person who's judgmental or a person who's against tattoos.

Again as a business owner it's my right to have my employees conform to a standard of dress or uniform that I deem appropriate. If you don't like that you need not apply for a position.

And exactly that is judging people by the outside except for their abilities and the inside, their personalities etc. something that the majority of the world does to a certain degree, and gets bashed for on a regular basic, I hear it everyday someone complaining over teenage girls judging teenage boys through looks rather than personality beforehand.

Um, quite simple put: tough. Appearance matters in all aspects of life, those who say otherwise are by and large either liars or oblivious to the state of things.

So if it's such a problem for us that someone judges by looks, which could resort to racism through that, why shouldn't we be allowed to put out some kind of complain for the fact that people are judging a tattoo? a artistic scar so to say.

Colorism is not racism. Also you more than free to complain about people not liking you because of your appearance, just don't expect it to change because you don't like it.

 

[Blue Chipper]

Plain and simple, if someone has a tattoo, don't prematurely judge them. In fact, we should stop stereotyping in general. A tattoo has no bearing on the quality of a person or their character. A genuinely nice and caring person could have a tattoo. I mean, you really don't know the type of person they are, until you know them.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Sure, it's his opinion whether he likes it or not, but should he really be allowed to be put in a situation where he can basically tell someone to go fuck themselves (to put it rudely) because of a tattoo? that's not fair unless it's discriminating in any form of way, which for the majority of times, I wouldn't consider a tribal to be anywhere near discriminating or offensive, but I still get told that I could get a job decline because of it, and I find that to be bullshit.

And sure, they shouldn't be forced but as I said, I find it ridiculous that they're put in a position of power where they can decline you because of a so called permanent drawing.

It's their business, they can do what ever they like. There are many persons who do not like tattoos, and they discriminate between people because of that. Clearly it is ridiculous to do that, and I am not suggesting in any way that they should be doing that, however that is a fact. A business man is looking out for his business and that is all. If your tattoo is a potential liability for that employer (it only matters if they feel it is, it's irrelevant whether it actually is or not), why take the risk?

That's exactly the point I'm asking, because of the amount of people that are uncomfortable with a tattoo, I ask if we're really in a position to judge that and be uncomfortable with it, if the lack of comfortability wasn't there in the common non tattooed person, then the business man wouldn't be in a position to deny anybody because of it, because it doesn't hurt his business

And a tattoo shouldn't be put in a position where it's judged to be hurtful towards a business, because, again, it's a mere drawing, unless it's offensive, there's really no hurt to come out of the business unless you're already a person who's judgmental or a person who's against tattoos

And exactly that is judging people by the outside except for their abilities and the inside, their personalities etc. something that the majority of the world does to a certain degree, and gets bashed for on a regular basic, I hear it everyday someone complaining over teenage girls judging teenage boys through looks rather than personality beforehand.

So if it's such a problem for us that someone judges by looks, which could resort to racism through that, why shouldn't we be allowed to put out some kind of complain for the fact that people are judging a tattoo? a artistic scar so to say.

Sure, if the stereotype didn't exist amongst others than there would be no reason for a business man to be worried, however that isn't the case. What you're asking is whether or not it's the businessman's job to be educating the public about the accuracy of their stereotypes, and I would say it is not.

You can put out a public complaint against those who discriminate against persons with tattoos, but your original question was whether or not an employer should be able to hire who he wants. To be perfectly honest, as long as it doesn't fall within the realm of public hate speech, I think it's an employers business whether or not they want to hire any one for any reason. A private businessman is running their own operation, they do not provide a necessity to you, and thus they should be allowed to do what they please.

That being said, I do agree that the discrimination is ridiculous and something needs to be done, however forcing employers to hire employees they really don't want isn't the answer. That isn't solving discrimination, it's attempting to sidestep the problem. The public has to be educated on stereotypes and the inaccuracy of some long-held beliefs, but that isn't the employers job. If you want to take up that mantle you are perfectly within your rights to do so. If you feel very strongly about it, write to your politicians, try to make stereotypes a talking point and vote for those who share your opinion.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

Should you be discriminated against for having tattoo's? Of course not. People will make judgements, but you're no less of a human being for having ink done.

Should you be discriminated against during a job application for having tattoo's? Well, i agree with Liger and Salv, yes you should, because an employer has an idea of what they want their staff to look like, and if you don't fit that image, then you're no good for the position.

If you want all your staff to look professional and approachable, then the guy with the tattoo's and the face piercings isn't likely to get the job, because the public wouldn't want to deal with them. It's not just the employer's prejudices that get in the way, it's their customers as well, and if the employers think you're likely to drive away their regular customers, then they won't hire you.

That's why most people go ahead and do stuff like that after they've been hired, because usually employers can't legally fire you because you decided to get a mohawk or pierce your lip. Some can, but most don't.

Someone said it earlier, and i agree, that when our generation takes over things like this won't be an issue. Instead we'll only hire people who have iPhones or buy from places where the staff all wear certain brands of shoes or some shit. Basically we'll just invent new prejudices. Either that or just abandon standards altogether. Neither option is a good one.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

But today when it's such a very common thing, a guy with a tattoo is still looked to as somewhat of a trouble maker, to say the least by:

1. the elder people
2. The boss of a company with a reputation

This is very focusing on the whole "boss" part, due to the fact that, well to say the least I've always had people telling me if I was ever to be getting a tattoo (which I have, this is something I was told prior to getting it) that I should limit it to places where it's visibility is limited, due to the reputation and prejudice of people when hiring people with clearly visible tattoos.

It's been a while since having a tattoo held that kind of stigma. These days, the only people that really have trouble with tattoos are the elder generation, so places like convenient stores and pharmacies have issues with tattoos, but not so much in professional settings such as offices. Times are changing, and the people in charge right now are people who HAVE tattoos that they got when they were teenagers, or young adults.

Plus, the trend for tattoos right now are huge works of art that cover the chest, back and arms, or small tribal tattoos. They're not related to gangs so much anymore, but rather artistic expression.

Realistically, the more time progresses, the more liberal people will be with tattoos in professional settings.

 

[Ferbian]

It's their business, they can do what ever they like. There are many persons who do not like tattoos, and they discriminate between people because of that. Clearly it is ridiculous to do that, and I am not suggesting in any way that they should be doing that, however that is a fact. A business man is looking out for his business and that is all. If your tattoo is a potential liability for that employer (it only matters if they feel it is, it's irrelevant whether it actually is or not), why take the risk?

But that's the thing, should there really be a risk? why in the world can't people just accept the common art that is a tattoo in todays society, cause (while stretching it a little bit, I know) it's the exact same thing as denying someone from working at said place because he's an African-American, people judge them as well, but yet that is one of the first things people cry up about when said African-American gets denied a job, calling said boss a racist, well shouldn't we be allowed to call the boss a prejudgist (or how you say it, that word really annoys me, and I'm sorry if I misspelled it, I'll appreciate a correction) because of denying someone for a tattoo? and if you are, therefore, you should be in a position to start campaigning against said person, bringing it to a level where the problem has surfaced properly, perhaps even blown out of proportion, but in the end, wouldn't that be the right choice if we're allowed to campaign against racism and people judging sexualities etc.?

Sure, if the stereotype didn't exist amongst others than there would be no reason for a business man to be worried, however that isn't the case. What you're asking is whether or not it's the businessman's job to be educating the public about the accuracy of their stereotypes, and I would say it is not.

And that's the exact problem, the judging from an older common description of a guy that is tattooed needs to change, so that a stereotype person to be tattooed, is a common person rather than some street thug, rapist etc.

You can put out a public complaint against those who discriminate against persons with tattoos, but your original question was whether or not an employer should be able to hire who he wants. To be perfectly honest, as long as it doesn't fall within the realm of public hate speech, I think it's an employers business whether or not they want to hire any one for any reason. A private businessman is running their own operation, they do not provide a necessity to you, and thus they should be allowed to do what they please.

That may very well be true, they do not provide a necessity for anybody but themselves, but even if they're allowed to do as they please, is it really fair? because in the end, it's blowing a thing to a new level just because you don't like it, hell the guy you just turned down could've potentially increased your overall income by thousands, millions, or if we're up there, billions, but you turned the guy down, I know that's not necessarily anything related to the thread, but it just shows that a boss no matter the company, no matter the reputation said boss is to maintain, he could make a fatal mistake by turning down said person.

That being said, I do agree that the discrimination is ridiculous and something needs to be done, however forcing employers to hire employees they really don't want isn't the answer. That isn't solving discrimination, it's attempting to sidestep the problem. The public has to be educated on stereotypes and the inaccuracy of some long-held beliefs, but that isn't the employers job. If you want to take up that mantle you are perfectly within your rights to do so. If you feel very strongly about it, write to your politicians, try to make stereotypes a talking point and vote for those who share your opinion.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they should be forced, I'm saying they should at least take some time to further know the persons qualities in the business marked, as I said, you could potentially loose an increase in income due to the loss of said employee.

And certainly I would doubt that taking it to a the state would do anything, because as you said, it's still the bosses own right to hire whomever he desires, and changing the ways of stereotyping the tattooed person does nothing for you, cause I'm certain the common description of a tattooed person will remain forever to be somewhat of a bad boy (or bad girl) but that doesn't make said person any less qualified for anything.

And in the end, even if the person was a bad influence in his personal life, should that really affect the person's business life? I'm certain if for example Albert Einstein had been tattooed, and had visible tattoos, and he was a bad influence in his personal life, I would call you an idiot if you had turned down his job application for a nuclear science company.

 

[Ferbian]

It's been a while since having a tattoo held that kind of stigma. These days, the only people that really have trouble with tattoos are the elder generation, so places like convenient stores and pharmacies have issues with tattoos, but not so much in professional settings such as offices. Times are changing, and the people in charge right now are people who HAVE tattoos that they got when they were teenagers, or young adults.

Yet I believe I've heard of some army (I don't recall what country, I believe it's either the American, or the Danish, doesn't matter which anyway) had officially told soldiers they weren't allowed to have publicly displayed tattoo's during service, and I believe the same goes for policemen and any person with an overall state hired position, which last time I checked, is a professional business. I could be wrong about the police etc. although, but I believe I've heard the terms.

Hell Denmark have rules for tattoos, we're not allowed to have a tattoo on our hands, face or neck, and you can be fined for having that in Denmark, the same goes for the person who made the tattoo, including if he tattooed a person under the age of 18, it's places that you cannot cover up in many thinkable ways, unless you're planning on running around with a mask, gloves and a neck covering shirt all year long.

Plus, the trend for tattoos right now are huge works of art that cover the chest, back and arms, or small tribal tattoos. They're not related to gangs so much anymore, but rather artistic expression.

That's exactly the point, there's nothing uncommon about having a tattoo these days, and they're closer to being a artistic tattoo than anything else, yet there's still people judging.