[Gemme]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

I keep seeing words like professionalism, dress code or other words that imply the same things, and I can't help but wonder what is so unprofessional about tattoos, piercings or even certain articles of clothing? To me, professionalism is an attitude, not a dress code. I thought it might be interesting for us to examine why exactly we, as a society, see people with tattoos, piercings or who dress a certain way as unprofessional or inappropriate. Is it the connotations that such things have in modern society (or perhaps in a more conservative past)? On top of that, why exactly are certain articles of clothing, tattoos or piercings seen as "disrespectful" to some? Because they do not conform? Because they do not seem "neutral"? Do we need complete uniformity and the erasure of individuality/individual identity in order to be professional? If not, then what is it about these things that makes people deem them unprofessional? Again, I think back to Thoreau on this one. And, funny enough, to Booth from Bones and his colourful socks and Cocky belt buckle in his quiet rebellion against conformity

Would the word distracting be better? If I see someone in a very professional, white collar environment with a bevy of tattoos, then that would be distracting to me. I can't or won't do anything about it (unless the tats are inappropriate in nature) but, for myself, I would pay more attention to the person's ink than what I came for (especially if it's good ink, then I'll ber there half the day quizzing him or her).

So, I guess I'm like JustJo in that tats....and more specifically the TYPE (cute 'n fluffy kitties versus skulls versus biblical verse, etc) of tat is associated with various jobs/industries for me. Not necessarily income class but there is a direct association for me nonetheless. I expect tats on mechanics for example. I'm not shocked when I don't see any but I tend to expect it. I expect it the more someone works with their hands.

A 94 year old woman I used to work for once said, "Tattoos are visible proof that that person has taken a risk. Most of us can't tell normally but those with visible markers scream it." What she meant was, tats are done by needle. Getting ink makes you more susceptible to Hepatitis and other blood-born illnesses. We all have taken risks at various points in our lives but tats say to those who look at them that way, this person has done "this". Does it change the way they perform their job? Hopefully not. Does it change the way they are perceived? Of course. That's what this thread is about.