Tattoos at interview

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by Tober138

Also, you might want to work on your reading comprehension a bit, in addition to salary, I also mentioned advanced degrees and higher-level corporate positions. The point was not about "money excusing all" - but rather that those who view people having tattoos as "low class" and "unprofessional" are well off the mark in that regard, as there are many in professional positions (even at higher levels) who have tattoos and also embody the concept of "professionalism" quite well.

I read quite well, I went to Catholic school. Instead of the smarmy passive-aggressive nonsense just come out and call me stupid the way a man does, don't be snide like a nun.

Anyway if you say people with professions (other than burglary) have tats I'll take your word. So can "professionals" can at long last smoke Winstons while wearing Marlboro caps too? I have long noticed bourgeois people wearing ball caps while sitting eating in restaurants and wearing blue jeans to mass and wakes.

This is what Paul Fussell called "Proletarian drift". An interesting trend.

[cometclear]

Originally Posted by nybbler

So you'd hire a violent ear-biting rapist, but some ordinary schmo with a visible tattoo, he's out of there? Brilliant illustration of the problems with the hiring process in this country.

You don't do sarcasm, do you?

[cometclear]

Originally Posted by Gatsby1925

Wow, the irony and condescension is overflowing your post, is it not?

You say you hate euphemisms, but you immediately compare a person with tattoos to someone who is covered with cuts and scars. No, it's not a valid comparison and you have made us all the more dumber for having read that.

You then make an unrelated comment concerning Facebook. It's ironic, really, that you criticize narcissistic behavior and yet look down on others who are not like you, which, by the way, is also a form of narcissism.

I have a couple of tattoos, but they are in locations that can be easily covered, even with casual clothes. If you wear a three-piece suit and tie to an interview, as you should be doing in the first place, you'll probably have no problems. Such attire covers up almost all of your body, and unless you have a facial tattoo or tattoos on your hands, you'll be fine.

I posted knowing it inevitable that someone with tattoos would be offended.

At the risk of being seen as further condescending, you really do need to look up the meanings of "euphemism" and "irony," unless, of course, you are using irony in an Alanis Morrissette kind-of-way.

Mutilation includes the meaning, "an injury that causes disfigurement." By definition, tattooing is "mutilation." Obviously, you and others aren't fond of acknowledging that you paid someone to mutilate portions of your body, but that doesn't change the essence of what has been done.

Now, which would you say reflects more poorly, a person suffering from mental illness who self-mutilates or someone who pays someone else to mutilate for reasons of "self-expression?" Now, I acknowledge that for many, getting tattoos is most likely a way to self-mutilate without actually doing it themselves, thus removing some of the stigma, but I would imagine most do it for other reasons.

[Tober138]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

I read quite well, I went to Catholic school. Instead of the smarmy passive-aggressive nonsense just come out and call me stupid the way a man does, don't be snide like a nun.

To begin with, name-calling is not something I tend to stoop to. Second, I wasn't referring to you as, "stupid"; instead I was pointing out that you went to the "money" part of what I had posted and ignored the rest of the content of what was said.

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

So can "professionals" can at long last smoke Winstons while wearing Marlboro caps too?

If they so choose, and if they choose to do so when it is appropriate, which likely means when they are someplace other than in the workplace. I am not a hat-wearing type of guy myself, but if you see me out and about on weekends, chances are I'm wearing a pair of jeans (possibly faded and / or even torn in a few places) and an old Ramones or Motley Crue t-shirt (assuming I am not somewhere where dress clothes or a suit would be more apporpriate). That has absolutely no bearing or reflection on my level of professionalism (in terms of dress, behavior or anything else) when I am in the workplace.


Although, I fail to see how this relates to the concept that people who have tattoos are somehow, "unprofessional".

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

I have long noticed bourgeois people wearing ball caps while sitting eating in restaurants and wearing blue jeans to mass and wakes.

Wearing hats while eating in a restaurant is poor manners and improper ettiquette (although maybe not so much at a fast food joint I guess). But again, I fail to see what that has to do with the discussion at hand.

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

This is what Paul Fussell called "Proletarian drift". An interesting trend.

Yes and no. In some cases, certain trends can be seen as being adopted by those higher up the socioeconomic ladder for whatever reasons (fashion, "hip" factor, or whatever). But in other cases, you have people who have made that transition up the ladder and have merely brought those things with them; I would argue that the latter is more genuine and not so much in line with Fussell's concept.

[AndrewMP]

I grew up in Baltimore city and have wanted alot of tattoos for a long time but have resisted the urge because I don't want to limit my job prospects. It's hard when you come from a culture where it is socially acceptable, but after I left that environment I learned about how the game is really played. I have utilized a lot of little tips like that which many people from my generation and the inner city and urban areas like the one I grew up in don't even consider.