Tattoos

[Mathius]

Would you get tattooed by someone without any visible tattoos?

I absolutely would. I don't see how one has anything to do with another. Particularly in Ohio where a licensed tattoo professional is required to serve an apprenticeship before they're allowed to tattoo professionally under license.

That's like saying you wouldn't let me work on your hot rod if I pulled up in a beat up old chevy cavalier to do the work.

It's a superficial assumption about how someone is supposed to act in your opinion.

Finding someone who can do a good tattoo is more about their work practices and their artistic ability than what they look like or how many tattoos or piercings they have on their own person. Particularly when you used the word "visible".

Facts are facts. You never get a second chance to make a first impression.

This

makes a better first impression than this

FWIW, the above is from an article on Whole Foods who's dress code varies depending on the area in which the store resides. The above employee is allowed to wear a shirt exposing his tats in a store in the LA Basin but not at their stores in New England where he is from. Despite Whole Food's image they are a fairly conservatively run business and extremely savvy about the image their employees present regardless if that employee is a bagger or manager, because the employees and their professionalism are responsible for the lasting impressions left on their customers to a far greater extent than the freshness of the cucumbers.

If your planned direction is toward architecture I would caution you against visible tattoos and piercings. That is a VERY conservative environment despite the creative nature of those who do "the work". It's a sales job. You are selling your creativity or ability to translate the vision of your client to a consumer or corporation who's intent is to make one of the largest investments they will ever make. There is a lot of trust that needs to be built starting with the first handshake. You don't want to add overcoming a bad first impression to the challenges inherent in the process.

It's not a "lack of progression" it's simply a matter of fact that certain standards of dress and appearance are not appropriate in many professional environments in just the same way that shorts and a tank top are not appropriate dress for a dinner at the French Laundry.

Except for your statement about it not being a "lack of progress" I'm not disagreeing with your perception of events. I'm just saying it isn't right.

There are many times in my life that I will meet people and just not like them just by looking at them. It's not a certain type of person, they don't have to say anything, it's just sometimes I meet people I just don't like. But I know within myself there's no logical reason for it, and it's my own personal character flaw and it isn't their fault. I'm usually pretty good about not letting it effect my attitude toward them and a lot of times I'll end up liking the person.

My friend that I've kept in contact the longest first met in 2nd grade. We didn't actually become friends until freshman year of h.s. We both hated each other before that. When we became friends and both said, "why did we hate each other so much?" Neither of us could come up with an answer. Here we are, both in our 30's, and we're still in touch, we live close to each other, rely on each other for different things, and it's the longest lasting friendship I've had.

It makes absolutely no sense to hold someone accountable for not living up to standards that YOU set for them, and the reality of it is, you lose out on dealing with or meeting some good quality people if you don't allow yourself to get to know them before forming an opinion.

And just an FYI, this is coming from a guy with zero social skills, who just quite frankly doesn't like most people in general.

Mathius

[MrQuick]

Thats the world we live in buddy. As a wise man once told me...."don't let your image determine your standing in the greater scope of being"

[Poopy]

I just got neck tattoos....it takes you to a whole new level of people staring at you thinking you are a bank robber. LOL I think its great...I love the scowls, and dirty looks from ignorant a-holes.

That said, If I really need to go to church or something, a collared shirt will cover them, as long as its long sleeved to cover my tattoo sleeves.

[wmhjr]

True and Jimmy got it exactly right. You're making a huge mistake if you're associating people who really don't like tattoos with racists in your analogy. It's all about culture. Like it or not, when you take a cross-section of a cultural group stereotypes are formed. The facts are that tattoos are culturally associated in many cases with a type of person that is not sought after in even a semi-professional role. It's a stereotype. It doesn't mean that if you have a tattoo you truly fit that stereotype, but SOMETHING caused that stereotype to begin with. And you personally are not going to change it. Frankly, my guess is that this particular stereotype will still exist long after any of us are gone.

So, I guess you need to decide what is more important to you. Pretty much blatantly expressing your individualism and belief that appearances just don't matter? Or preserving as much opportunity for future careers and opportunities as you can?

BTW, I'm like True. If I interview somebody and they have visible tattoos it's a strike. Doesn't necessarily mean I won't hire them - though there are positions for which I would not due to the issue of who they need to deal with. But if I need to compare them to another equal candidate, they are at a disadvantage. In the case of somebody like True mentioned with the large ear rings, etc - they are out. No chance. Our environment often requires even individual contributors to interface with all kinds of people, including external people around the world. We can't afford to present a perception that we're not totally professional. That's how you lose business.

[Damn True]

Would you get tattooed by someone without any visible tattoos?

The better question is, "What would be your first impression of a tattoo artist who didn't appear to have tattoos?"

Mathius,

I'm not going to argue with you. You asked "how it is" and a number of folks have given you the answer. It sounds like you may be a kind of guy who enjoys, to some extent bucking convention. There is nothing inherently wrong with that and in some circles, and in some ways it can even be beneficial in terms of building a brand for yourself and developing a sort of notoriety. Just understand that it cuts both ways. You are going to run into people that are turned off by it.

Like it or not, a large part of transmitting one's professionalism in a given endeavor is based on appearance. Hence the canards such as "Look the part" and "Dress as if...". If you are intent on being that guy you need to realize that you are going to miss opportunities based on an appearance of being less professional than another equally qualified candidate. Particularly in a field as traditionally conservative as architecture.

And just an FYI, this is coming from a guy with zero social skills, who just quite frankly doesn't like most people in general.

This might prove problematic as well.

[Mathius]

True and Jimmy got it exactly right. You're making a huge mistake if you're associating people who really don't like tattoos with racists in your analogy.

That was not at all the analogy I was making. The point I was trying to make when I mentioned racists is because the poster said I was close minded for not accepting people who are close-minded about tattoos.

I was trying to point out how silly it is to tell someone their morally wrong for disagreeing with something they perceive as morally wrong.

But honestly I don't see how profiling based on tattoos or piercing is much different than profiling because of race except that one you're born with. But did you see the movie tropic thunder? It was a comedy, but in the movie Robert Downey Jr. had some kind of pigment procedure to make him look black. I don't know if such a procedure is possible or not, but would you say if some young white young man had a pigment augmentation to make him black that it's ok to say this person's "look" is wrong because he wasn't born as a black man, but became one?

I'm just trying to point out that it's all merely appearance. It's like discriminating against someone because their ugly or even more ridiculous because they wore a bad outfit that day. It happens all the time, but that doesn't make it right.

Mathius

[Tony_SS]

When it comes to impressions - It does not matter what you do, it matters what you say and how you look. For the most part, our society is a shallow, judgmental, superficial collectivist culture. It's just a fact. If that's some sort of social injustice you want to stamp out, then go for it. Be the change you want to see. But I don't think you'll get the results you want.

I have a quarter sleeve and other tattoos. I got them for me, not to prove anything to anyone else. So I'm not bashing folks with tattoos. But if you want to prove something, become successful first - then get then the tattoos you want on your neck and hands. That was one of their intended purposes. Ancient tribes used them as a rite of passage, an achievement or social status. They were earned.

Now tattoos and piercings just reflect our superficial society as they are just token decorations.

[6'9"Witha69]

Piercings and Tattoos are a cognitive decision. You must be aware, as True pointed out, that it goes both ways. I grew up a skater and punk rocker. I still love my punk music. I have tattoos. I had a tongue piercing as well as others. I learned very early on that those decisions hampered my development in society as there was a large section of people who didn't like it. So I made the decions to remove any piercing that may be seen (or even percieved) and to keep the tats easily covered.

And think about it, what kinds of people are usually tatted up? What are those tats of/about? Often times the person may have no objection to the existence of tattoos, but the content may be particularly offputting.

I guess it comes down to, "there's a time and a place for everything". In a professional environment is not exactly the time or place for showing off your creative individuality. WHat you have to say about the topic at hand based on your line of work / topic of the day should be the focus. Don't let things you can easily control cloud other peoples thoughts.

but would you say if some young white young man had a pigment augmentation to make him black that it's ok to say this person's "look" is wrong because he wasn't born as a black man, but became one?

The real question is, what would that person be trying to say or prove? That is often the most time/thought consuming part of looking at people, What are they thinking/trying to prove with that statement?

[6'9"Witha69]

When it comes to impressions - It does not matter what you do, it matters what you say and how you look. For the most part, our society is a shallow, judgmental, superficial collectivist culture. It's just a fact. If that's some sort of social injustice you want to stamp out, then go for it. Be the change you want to see. But I don't think you'll get the results you want.

I have a quarter sleeve and other tattoos. I got them for me, not to prove anything to anyone else. So I'm not bashing folks with tattoos. But if you want to prove something, become successful first - then get then the tattoos you want on your neck and hands. That was one of their intended purposes. Ancient tribes used them as a rite of passage, an achievement or social status. They were earned.

Now tattoos and piercings just reflect our superficial society as they are just token decorations.

Or they were used to denote ownership of slaves. This goes back to the BC years. Just like branding/marking cattle. The WWII Germans did it to Jews at internment camps. So there is a lot of negative history associated with inking of the skin as well.

[wmhjr]

That was not at all the analogy I was making. The point I was trying to make when I mentioned racists is because the poster said I was close minded for not accepting people who are close-minded about tattoos.

I was trying to point out how silly it is to tell someone their morally wrong for disagreeing with something they perceive as morally wrong.

But honestly I don't see how profiling based on tattoos or piercing is much different than profiling because of race except that one you're born with. But did you see the movie tropic thunder? It was a comedy, but in the movie Robert Downey Jr. had some kind of pigment procedure to make him look black. I don't know if such a procedure is possible or not, but would you say if some young white young man had a pigment augmentation to make him black that it's ok to say this person's "look" is wrong because he wasn't born as a black man, but became one?

I'm just trying to point out that it's all merely appearance. It's like discriminating against someone because their ugly or even more ridiculous because they wore a bad outfit that day. It happens all the time, but that doesn't make it right.

Mathius

Mathius, It is far different - for one fundamental reason. "Profiling" isn't a term I'd suggest using here for the obvious confusion it could create. "Bias" certainly is. And the big difference is that if I meet somebody who is black, white, short, tall, or even as ugle as me, those are appearances for which they made no decisions and executed no judgement in. I'm 6'2". I had no choice to become 5'11" or 6'5". I had no choice in my facial structure. Or that I'm white - or somebody else did in that they are black.

Tattoos are a demonstration of choice, and judgement. Frankly, this thread in and of itself is ample proof to me that in introducing bias concerning my interviews of people with visible tattoos is valid. You are struggling trying to figure out if it's "right" or "worth it" to you to try and more seamlessly assimilate with others who may not share your views. That is a demonstrated "judgement" that I can with good reason say would give me concerns about hiring you in a role where you might need to interact with such people. I don't want to have to worry about whether or not somebody feels so strongly about their own personal rights to look the way they want. I don't want to hire somebody who is showing - up front before they are even hired - at least some inability to compromise.

And as for the idea about somebody wearing a "bad outfit" - you just made my point even stronger. That's why we have dress codes in many professional lives. So that we can insure that we present an appearance that is most likely to make us successful.

You have every right to have any tattoo you want. You don't have a right to any job you want. By failing to understand the very logical and relevant reasons why an employer may not want visible tattoos, you are in fact being close minded. And your desire to impose your particular belief on THEIR company is IMHO at the very least unethical. I understand it, but this is planet earth.

[twosaturns]

Mathius, you said:
Have we progressed as a nation enough to wear they don't have to be hidden anymore?
IDK if many people would call the proliferation of tattoos 'progress'.
simple fact is, if you want to play the game, you have to play by the rules. if you want to be in the business world, you dress the part, conforming to THEM, not the other way around.
it's not just tattoos either; how many businessmen or politicians do you see with full beards or long hair? quite the minority (in politics, no beards or long hair at all).
if you want to be all tough and whatnot, then go on with your bad self and get a tattoo, that's your freedom of choice. but don't expect anyone else to 'have' to agree with 'your' choice, nor try to play the victim card and saying you're being 'judged'. they are not being judgmental, that's the other person exercising their 'rights' to not agree with you.

[Damn True]

Tattoos are a demonstration of choice, and judgement. Frankly, this thread in and of itself is ample proof to me that in introducing bias concerning my interviews of people with visible tattoos is valid. You are struggling trying to figure out if it's "right" or "worth it" to you to try and more seamlessly assimilate with others who may not share your views. That is a demonstrated "judgement" that I can with good reason say would give me concerns about hiring you in a role where you might need to interact with such people. I don't want to have to worry about whether or not somebody feels so strongly about their own personal rights to look the way they want. I don't want to hire somebody who is showing - up front before they are even hired - at least some inability to compromise.

This is an excellent point. If I'm interviewing someone who knows the standard of dress/appearance for the organization and they consciously present themselves in a manner contrary to that I am led to believe that they don't care what the organization thinks or values. By extension, it's not a real stretch to imagine that they don't care what our clients think or value either.

Interview over.

[Tony_SS]

They always say dress for the job you want... that's probably why I always wore jeans and a t-shirt before I left my old corporate job.

Or they were used to denote ownership of slaves. This goes back to the BC years. Just like branding/marking cattle. The WWII Germans did it to Jews at internment camps. So there is a lot of negative history associated with inking of the skin as well.

Well I speaking about those who voluntary got tattoo'd. :P But yes, regardless, tattooing does still have some of that stigma attached to it.

[Fastrun72]

What's mine say? " SWEET!!!".... Now what's mine say? "DUDE!!!"

[Mathius]

When it comes to impressions - It does not matter what you do, it matters what you say and how you look. For the most part, our society is a shallow, judgmental, superficial collectivist culture. It's just a fact. If that's some sort of social injustice you want to stamp out, then go for it. Be the change you want to see. But I don't think you'll get the results you want.

I have a quarter sleeve and other tattoos. I got them for me, not to prove anything to anyone else. So I'm not bashing folks with tattoos. But if you want to prove something, become successful first - then get then the tattoos you want on your neck and hands. That was one of their intended purposes. Ancient tribes used them as a rite of passage, an achievement or social status. They were earned.

Now tattoos and piercings just reflect our superficial society as they are just token decorations.

It's not a question of trying to do something to prove something, it's a question of just being myself and allowing people to have to judge me by who I am, rather than how I look.

And think about it, what kinds of people are usually tatted up?

You're talking in circles. You're making a broad statement that strongly hints that people who are "tatted up" are less desirable people to hire and/or associate with, but you're also saying a minute later that responsible people will dress according to the norm. If these conditions set by society didn't exist, you can bet there'd be a whole lot more people "tatted up" as you put it. How many people in this thread alone have expressed that they've limited their tattoos for the simple fact that the "business world" doesn't accept it.

Mathius

[Mathius]

Mathius, It is far different - for one fundamental reason. "Profiling" isn't a term I'd suggest using here for the obvious confusion it could create.

I don't see any confusion. There's no difference between you profiling people because of their visible tattoos and the airports profiling muslims. It's the same EXACT thing. You have a perceived perception of people based on YOUR opinion or perception of what you think the vast majority of tattoo'ed people behave like, or manage to achieve. It's the same way police and airport security have a reputation of pulling Muslims aside because it's perceived that the vast majority of Muslims in america are potential terrorists.

One just happens to be a more serious charge.

Tattoos are a demonstration of choice, and judgement. Frankly, this thread in and of itself is ample proof to me that in introducing bias concerning my interviews of people with visible tattoos is valid. You are struggling trying to figure out if it's "right" or "worth it" to you to try and more seamlessly assimilate with others who may not share your views. That is a demonstrated "judgement" that I can with good reason say would give me concerns about hiring you in a role where you might need to interact with such people. I don't want to have to worry about whether or not somebody feels so strongly about their own personal rights to look the way they want. I don't want to hire somebody who is showing - up front before they are even hired - at least some inability to compromise.

This is my number one beef with the vast majority of american culture. The fact that you would look at a person with visible tattoos or read a thread I wrote here on a board, and automatically form an opinion and bias as you put it against them is arrogant and illogical to the extreme. It's also judgmental.

You don't know me from Jesus Christ anymore than you know a random person that walks up to you in a job interview, but you're willing to make all kinds of perceptions and judgments based on one interview or conversation? You don't have any idea what's going on in my head, why I reason things the way I do, etc. etc.

That's why we USED to have multiple interviews in this country, but we of course like everything else determined them to cost too much. It's also a grand reason why we have such a large job turnover rate in this country, because people decide to form an opinion of someone based on a 15 min interview and then if they don't fit your perception of what you think they're capable of, they're out the door.

Seriously? Professional sports scout people for months and years, and they still can't pick for sh*t in the draft or figure out which players are going to run within league rules or even american laws.

And as for the idea about somebody wearing a "bad outfit" - you just made my point even stronger. That's why we have dress codes in many professional lives. So that we can insure that we present an appearance that is most likely to make us successful.

Clothes don't make you successful. Working hard, presenting the right attitude, and having the right education and skills for your job level make you successful.

You have every right to have any tattoo you want. You don't have a right to any job you want. By failing to understand the very logical and relevant reasons why an employer may not want visible tattoos, you are in fact being close minded. And your desire to impose your particular belief on THEIR company is IMHO at the very least unethical. I understand it, but this is planet earth.

Their not logical reasons, they're personal prejudices and perceptions, and not agreeing with it doesn't make me close minded. You're not close minded for failing to accept a concept that has no logical ramifications. There is no logical evidence to support the statement that having visible tattoos makes you a bad worker, an uneducated worker, or a worker incapable of a professional attitude.

And I'm not imposing my beliefs on anyone. I'm having a debate and a discussion. If I choose to get visible tattoos or if I don't it's not going to make one lick of difference how an owner decides to run his company.

You should go look up the word impose. I'm not forcing or attempting to force anyone to do anything. I'm simply pointing out something that I don't see as logical for any reason.

Mathius

[Mathius]

This is an excellent point. If I'm interviewing someone who knows the standard of dress/appearance for the organization and they consciously present themselves in a manner contrary to that I am led to believe that they don't care what the organization thinks or values. By extension, it's not a real stretch to imagine that they don't care what our clients think or value either.

Interview over.

That's only releveant if you're aware of those standards beforehand. Throwing the words "professional appearance" around, and imposing a formal written dress code are two different things.

Mathius

[Mathius]

Mathius, you said:
Have we progressed as a nation enough to wear they don't have to be hidden anymore?
IDK if many people would call the proliferation of tattoos 'progress'.
simple fact is, if you want to play the game, you have to play by the rules. if you want to be in the business world, you dress the part, conforming to THEM, not the other way around.
it's not just tattoos either; how many businessmen or politicians do you see with full beards or long hair? quite the minority (in politics, no beards or long hair at all).
if you want to be all tough and whatnot, then go on with your bad self and get a tattoo, that's your freedom of choice. but don't expect anyone else to 'have' to agree with 'your' choice, nor try to play the victim card and saying you're being 'judged'. they are not being judgmental, that's the other person exercising their 'rights' to not agree with you.

Oh come on? You know very well I'm not saying that the "proliferation of tattoos" is progress. I'm talking about a much bigger issue, which is judging someone by their appearance.

And again, I believe this is the third time I've said this... I know how the world works, I'm just saying it's not right. There's no logical basis for such prejudice.

Mathius

[Damn True]

That's only releveant if you're aware of those standards beforehand.

If you aren't aware, you haven't done your homework and you've demonstrated a disrespect for the organization that has granted you an opportunity to interview with them.

If an applicant has not done enough due diligence to research the corporate culture of the organization that he is trying to convince to hire him he has further demonstrated a lack of professionalism. A person who demonstrates professionalism takes the time to learn about the company and it's culture, it's values and exercises enough introspection to determine if he fits or needs to tweak a few things to fit. If he can't put forth that small level of effort...and all it usually takes is a couple of questions to the HR rep who sets up the interview... why on earth would I assume he'd put forth the effort to learn the culture and values of our clients?

Throwing the words "professional appearance" around, and imposing a formal written dress code are two different things.

Mathius

No they aren't. If you don't know what "professional appearance" means within the context of the organization you seek to join you aren't prepared for the interview, let alone prepared to work there. In eleven years in Silicon Valley I've never seen a formal written dress code at any company I've worked for yet the professionals I work with know what a professional appearance is within the context of their individual roles in the organization, as has every applicant I've hired.

Further, a professional appearance is circumstantial. Some of our clients are start-ups. If we are in a meeting with them we dress in a manner that is in keeping with their norm. Often, that is jeans and a golf shirt, if you've seen "The Social Network" you'll have seen that some are even more casual than that...and I've been in that building more times than I care to count. By the same token we have clients that are Fortune 500 companies or government entities. For a meeting in that environment I break out the Boss, Baroni or Fiorelli because a suit is the appropriate standard of dress within those environments. It's about respect for the culture you are being invited into and it is incumbent on you as a job applicant or representative of a company to demonstrate that respect as a function of professionalism.

[Tony_SS]

That's why I suggested wearing the monkey suit, landing the gig, crush heads to climb the ladder, and when you're vice president of the company, get a big ol giant tattoo on your neck that says "not a step".