Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments” (Ex. 20:4-6).
Be well. Your body is the temple to yoursole. You have to take good care of it, as you taking good care of your sole. Though that taint that body with graven images, taint thy temples and thy soles.
I think you were going for "soul", there, bud. Soles are what's at the bottom of your feet.
The commandment is about worshipping idols. Nobody worships a tattoo.
Well, I shouldn't say that. You never know. We have people worshipping cheese sandwiches that look like Mary. But most people don't worship tattoos.
My comment was more in general.
I don't see how people can't see the difference between how we're born and what we do to those bodies afterwards. I even get a little ticked when I see babies with pierced ears because it's not their choice to make.
Glad to see someone agrees with me on that.
When my daughter was a baby, friends asked me when I was going to have her ears pierced. I said when she decides she wants pierced ears.
That was at 7, and after a month she decided she didn't like it, so she let them close. She got them pierced again around 12.
Otherwise is too general since it can include disabilities, dis-figuration, accident scars, etc. Body modification is more appropriate.
A corporation will create its own corporate culture. Every employee will have to adhere to it. This will include how you communicate, how you dress, how you present yourself, etc. This is similar to the rules that schools and universities have with their student body. Who cares how this company made the statement at least they were upfront. Other companies will BS you.
Corporate culture is different with every industry. The fashion and entertainment industry might be more lenient when it comes to tattoos and hairstyles.
MTV would hire someone with arm-sleeves, hand, and/or neck tattoos but might not hire someone with face tattoos. MTV would hire someone with a mohawk.
Goldman Sachs might not hire someone with neck, face and hand tattoos. GS might not hire someone with a Mohawk.
I don't disagree with most of this post----but I do challenge you to think outside the proverbial box. The preferred corporate look for men is a suit, dress shirt, tie, polished dress shoes (we all know what it is). But it is a COSTUME for an office job. That's all it is---a costume they expect you to wear. But when it comes to your BODY (natural or otherwise<<<I stand by this choice of word), I can assure you that an applicant with a visible disfigurement (e.g. a severely burned face, a big strawberry birthmark, a prominent scar across their cheek) would be discriminated against JUST as much as someone with a small tattoo on their hand or neck. Again, it has nothing to do with professinalism--it has ALL to do with conforming. And for the record---I've met plenty of people dressed to the 9's in the typical/preferred corporate costume (and no tattoos showing) that have been highly unprofessional.
I don't disagree with most of this post----but I do challenge you to think outside the proverbial box. The preferred corporate look for men is a suit, dress shirt, tie, polished dress shoes (we all know what it is). But it is a COSTUME for an office job. That's all it is---a costume they expect you to wear. But when it comes to your BODY (natural or otherwise<<<I stand by this choice of word), I can assure you that an applicant with a visible disfigurement (e.g. a severely burned face, a big strawberry birthmark, a prominent scar across their cheek) would be discriminated against JUST as much as someone with a small tattoo on their hand or neck. Again, it has nothing to do with professinalism--it has ALL to do with conforming. And for the record---I've met plenty of people dressed to the 9's in the typical/preferred corporate costume (and no tattoos showing) that have been highly unprofessional.
I'm not sure about that. Scars and birthmarks are things that cannot be controlled. One doesn't make a choice to be disfigured, have a birthmark on their face of may have received the scar as the result of an accident. OTOH, someone who has facial piercings or tattoos on their face HAD the choice of doing that. That in itself tells me that they don't have a whole lot of respect for their bodies because I see the tattoos and bizarre piercings (normal ear piercing NOT included) as a form of self-mutilation. So, IMHO, someone who does these things are really not thinking clearly. They're expensive, painful and PERMANENT. How cool is that tattooed snake slithering up your neck going to look when your 80?
I'm not sure about that. Scars and birthmarks are things that cannot be controlled. One doesn't make a choice to be disfigured, have a birthmark on their face of may have received the scar as the result of an accident. OTOH, someone who has facial piercings or tattoos on their face HAD the choice of doing that. That in itself tells me that they don't have a whole lot of respect for their bodies because I see the tattoos and bizarre piercings (normal ear piercing NOT included) as a form of self-mutilation. So, IMHO, someone who does these things are really not thinking clearly. They're expensive, painful and PERMANENT. How cool is that tattooed snake slithering up your neck going to look when your 80?
What if tattoo and piercings have something to do with culture or religious beliefs? Everyone has a choice whether or not to have tangible and/or intangible pieces on his/her own body. Don't judge the book by its cover
I know that Sears will hire people with visible tattoos. At the Sears in my city, a woman (from I believe an African country---Ethiopia perhaps) has tattoo rings all the way up her neck to her chin. It's quite striking (as in not ugly) and probably (but I don't know for sure) is a cultural or religious custom. She's quite professional---in fact, one of the more reliable, businesslike people at that store.
I'm not sure about that. Scars and birthmarks are things that cannot be controlled. One doesn't make a choice to be disfigured, have a birthmark on their face of may have received the scar as the result of an accident. OTOH, someone who has facial piercings or tattoos on their face HAD the choice of doing that. That in itself tells me that they don't have a whole lot of respect for their bodies because I see the tattoos and bizarre piercings (normal ear piercing NOT included) as a form of self-mutilation. So, IMHO, someone who does these things are really not thinking clearly. They're expensive, painful and PERMANENT. How cool is that tattooed snake slithering up your neck going to look when your 80?
Of course scars and birthmarks are not a choice. However, unless you ask---you really don't know why someone has a big scar on their face---they may have gotten into a drunken barroom brawl in the bad part of town and someone carved their face up....or not. But do you at least see WHY it's better to not assume anything? A prospective employer would never ask how someone got a big scar---it would be seen as discriminatory questioning.
My point was about conforming or not conforming and how a a lot of companies want someone to look. Whether it's a prominent scar, a big cherry red birthmark, or a tattoo---all of those people will be discriminated against because of their appearance. It's not about professionalism!!!! Yes---there are varying degrees of discrimination depending on what type of job a person with any kind of disfigurement is applying for, but I've seen it over and over and over again in my corporate years. The "pretty" people get ahead (and are more apt to get hired) over someone with any of the above (and more...). And it has nothing to do with professionalism.
I know...I am sounding like a broken record now. I'll quit ranting.
Location: where people are either too stupid to leave or too stuck to move
3,982 posts, read 6,687,625 times
Reputation: 3689
some places say you can have a tattoo as long as its tasteful and not overbearing...and some say nothing at all...i hope never to work in a ultra conservative place, hate to relive private school again
People make judgment calls on appearances all the time. I do so as well, whether this is fair or not.
If a person has a neck or face tattoo I tend to count that against them. It is distracting and unprofessional looking. While I have hired people with these tattoos in the past, they have to be just a bit better than the competition to land the job.
I really don't care about piercings, and tattoos other than face/neck are fine.
So if you run up against me as a hiring manager, those are my views
Visible tattoos are ****ing trashy. Period, end of story.
If you want to work in a job where you interface with the public and have visible tattos, give it up, you have a future career as a garbageman, janitor, heroin addict.
They're ok if you're the Pixie Dust Spreader on the Tilt-a-Whirl. Most other careers, not so much.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
