Tattoos and Piercings in the Workplace

[JustJo]

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)?

Hi EnderD,

Great question. I know that, for me, I was raised to think of tattoos and piercings (other than the single earlobe piercing for women only) as class markers - and that people with significant visible tattoos or piercings were announcing a "lower class" status.

Since I was raised somewhere below working class, these things were hugely important...and getting a visible tattoo was to trap yourself forever (in part) in that place.

For the record, I'm not saying this is right...just the programming in my head.

I can easily overcome it, and don't see tattoos or piercings as a reflection on anyone's professionalism or capability (or class), but it's still where my brain instantly goes...and I have to drag it back.

I also work with a lot of seniors, and I have heard an awful lot of the same things come out of their mouths...so I think it was more widespread in previous generations.

And yea....I love this gal...

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by SassyLeo

I believe that there is appropriate attire for the workplace, especially in healthcare. Now if I worked in a clothing shop or tattoo shop or a creative type company… I’m sure I would have a VERY different feeling. So is it about the industry?

It might be about the industry SassyLeo.

I work in the healthcare field as well, and our company policy is no visible tattoos on anyone, anywhere, regardless of size. Also, no piercings other than ears, and only "standard, traditional" ear piercings (although they are allowed on both men and women).

Our entire dress code is quite strict. For years we weren't even allowed to wear open-toed shoes, even for desk positions.

[SassyLeo]

Originally Posted by JustJo

It might be about the industry SassyLeo.

I work in the healthcare field as well, and our company policy is no visible tattoos on anyone, anywhere, regardless of size. Also, no piercings other than ears, and only "standard, traditional" ear piercings (although they are allowed on both men and women).

Our entire dress code is quite strict. For years we weren't even allowed to wear open-toed shoes, even for desk positions.

I've been thinking about this for the last few weeks...and there are 2 pieces for me that I struggle with.

1. I think because I work in healthcare, and because I know that STILL some of the outside world views tattoos and piercings as "not clean", I get stuck in that thought. I know that some of the population we serve (elderly) is challenged by appearance and what is considered sanitary. We have a policy that staff cannot wear artificial nails and excessive jewelry or make-up in the clinics and hospitals because of sanitary reasons. But I think that also is their way of also maintaining what they view as a “professional appearance”

2. I have a lot of opinions about how people dress in the workplace. I know this is MY stuff. I own it. We have several folks here who push the envelope; wearing flip flops and holey jeans to work. Our dress policy states that you cannot wear them, but these folks insist they are “dressy” flip flops and the jeans “came that way from the store”.

So, it’s not JUST about the tattoos and piercings, it is about what I think is OK to wear to work. Although my parents are total ex-hippies and very liberal minded people, I was raised with ideas about how to behave, appear, speak, etc. And how to be and appear in the workplace is a big one.

[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.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Gemme

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.

I realise what the thread is about, but what I'm suggesting is that we, as a society, dig deeper into our aversion, distraction, whatever-you-want-to-call-it of tattoos, piercings etc. And you highlighted part of what I'm getting at in the last portion of your post. There seems to be a rather blatant and needless connection made between the way a job is performed and the appearance of the one performing it, and this does not stop at tattoos or piercings or hairstyle. One could just as easily say that about a butch, someone in the midst of a transition, an androgynous worker, or even the perceived connection between certain ethnicities (and here speaking of any ethnicity from Irish, German, Russian, Italian, Cree, Métis, Mi'kmaq, Somalian, Jamaican, to Chinese, Japanese, Sri Lankan etc.) and certain occupations in the past. Just looking a certain way (butch, andro, Muslim, Aboriginal etc.) can just as easily spur on more questions about what you look like/what you're wearing and why than what a customer initially came for. What I am suggesting is that we begin to understand why we associate certain visual markers (be they genetic or chosen) with competence and sanitation in the work place, that really are not inherently connected to either; working past them instead of trying to justify them, recognising that attitudes are changing and that perhaps it would be beneficial to encourage that change.

As for the risk factor, while that perception may exist for some, I think that's quickly being broken as everyone from housewives to mechanics sport tattoos these days.

Originally Posted by JustJo

Hi EnderD,

Great question. I know that, for me, I was raised to think of tattoos and piercings (other than the single earlobe piercing for women only) as class markers - and that people with significant visible tattoos or piercings were announcing a "lower class" status.

Since I was raised somewhere below working class, these things were hugely important...and getting a visible tattoo was to trap yourself forever (in part) in that place.

For the record, I'm not saying this is right...just the programming in my head.

I can easily overcome it, and don't see tattoos or piercings as a reflection on anyone's professionalism or capability (or class), but it's still where my brain instantly goes...and I have to drag it back.

I also work with a lot of seniors, and I have heard an awful lot of the same things come out of their mouths...so I think it was more widespread in previous generations.

And yea....I love this gal...

Should we not, then, be challenging the remnants of that form of thinking (and the idea that "lower class" equates to incapable and unprofessional), instead of encouraging it? People talk a lot about equal opportunity and to me that doesn't mean conforming to past sensibilities simply because it avoids conflict. I work with many people of different ages, nationalities and religions, and of course I am sensitive to that, but I actually notice that very few of them (only one so far) take issue with my co-workers’ tattoos, piercings, long hair (on men) or religious beliefs (f.ex., wearing a Hijab while simultaneously working in an environment that one does not typically associate with “traditional Muslim women”) in our environment. I also notice co-workers very quick to defend other co-workers when that issue rises, which in turn I see changing member/client perceptions as well. Unfortunately we aren’t 100% there yet when it comes to lgbt issues in the workplace (in the fitness industry, though in others they are more fully recognised), but I like to think we're getting there, the more we accept others' differences.

And yeah, Abby rocks!

Originally Posted by SassyLeo

1. I think because I work in healthcare, and because I know that STILL some of the outside world views tattoos and piercings as "not clean", I get stuck in that thought. I know that some of the population we serve (elderly) is challenged by appearance and what is considered sanitary. We have a policy that staff cannot wear artificial nails and excessive jewelry or make-up in the clinics and hospitals because of sanitary reasons. But I think that also is their way of also maintaining what they view as a “professional appearance”

Probably right on that last bit, though I think asking that people don't wear artificial nails or excessive jewelry is more justifiable when it comes to workplace safety, as they can easily become caught or dislodged. I work in the fitness industry where quite a few of our members/clients are 50+, not to mention many are conservative Muslims (though once you start getting to know them, not quite as conservative as they initially appear), and still I have co-workers with quite a few piercings, most have visible tattoos, others with "unconventional" hairstyles etc.

Originally Posted by SassyLeo

2. I have a lot of opinions about how people dress in the workplace. I know this is MY stuff. I own it. We have several folks here who push the envelope; wearing flip flops and holey jeans to work. Our dress policy states that you cannot wear them, but these folks insist they are “dressy” flip flops and the jeans “came that way from the store”.

So, it’s not JUST about the tattoos and piercings, it is about what I think is OK to wear to work. Although my parents are total ex-hippies and very liberal minded people, I was raised with ideas about how to behave, appear, speak, etc. And how to be and appear in the workplace is a big one.

And this is what I was trying to question in my last post. Why is it unprofessional to wear flipflops or torn jeans? What mentality gave rise to this perception and why? I can understand if one works on a construction site, or in another field where such attire just isn't practical for what you're doing, but otherwise, why? Is it as Jo suggested, that "casual" wear like torn jeans, tattoos etc. denote a "lower class" individual? And if so, what's wrong with that in our current world? Isn't the so-called American dream the US feeds would-be immigrants/migrants/refugees based on the "rags to riches" tale? Or must one do so only under the auspices of being someone else entirely, or only under the conditions society creates for us?

[ravfem]

my initial response was that i always think it's pretty dang cool to see tattoos and/or piercings on people in business settings. A few of the personnel, including at least one CMA, CNA and 2 FNPs, at some of the medical offices i have to go to have body art of one sort or another. i always smile extra at them (yes yes, i know...) and think that management must be pretty open-minded.

Then someone mentioned something about a tattoo that was offensive. At this point, my brain stomped on the brakes, making that noise in my head.

OK, no....i wouldn't want to see a swastika on the CMA's inner wrist, or "god hates fags" written in a very pretty font around their neck.

So, i have decided that when i rule the world, i will get to choose which tats are ok and which are not.

[SassyLeo]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

*snip*

And this is what I was trying to question in my last post. Why is it unprofessional to wear flipflops or torn jeans? What mentality gave rise to this perception and why? I can understand if one works on a construction site, or in another field where such attire just isn't practical for what you're doing, but otherwise, why? Is it as Jo suggested, that "casual" wear like torn jeans, tattoos etc. denote a "lower class" individual? And if so, what's wrong with that in our current world? Isn't the so-called American dream the US feeds would-be immigrants/migrants/refugees based on the "rags to riches" tale? Or must one do so only under the auspices of being someone else entirely, or only under the conditions society creates for us?

For me, personally, it is not about "lower class".

It's how I was raised. My mother grew up in a poor Jewish household. My father in a middle class white household. They both were total hippies and we lived poorly until I was a pre-teen. I would say were were lower class until then. They never ever said that we were any different thany any other poor or rich family (minus the money part)

But, it was instilled in me that in the workplace, it is desireable and expected to look well-kept. This meant clean clothes with no holes/rips/tears or big stains; or clothes that are ill-fitting, etc. Not I am not saying that my views could not change or that I haven't softened. For instance, for years, I would never wear jeans to work, even on casual Friday. I finally found a pair of jeans that TO ME look professional enough to wear- I am wearing them today. But with a blouse and wedge sandals (not flip flops).

I have 4 tattoos. And I specifically have them in places that can be covered. 2 of them are on my shoulder area and so depending on the top I have on, the corners can be seen. I try to avoid this, but it does happen. Then I tug at my shirt all day

I should also note that although I work in healthcare, I don't work in a clinic or hospital setting.

I totally get what you are saying. I really do...

I need to process through some other opinions I have that I think are tied into this...

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by SassyLeo

For me, personally, it is not about "lower class".

It's how I was raised. My mother grew up in a poor Jewish household. My father in a middle class white household. They both were total hippies and we lived poorly until I was a pre-teen. I would say were were lower class until then. They never ever said that we were any different thany any other poor or rich family (minus the money part)

But, it was instilled in me that in the workplace, it is desireable and expected to look well-kept. This meant clean clothes with no holes/rips/tears or big stains; or clothes that are ill-fitting, etc. Not I am not saying that my views could not change or that I haven't softened. For instance, for years, I would never wear jeans to work, even on casual Friday. I finally found a pair of jeans that TO ME look professional enough to wear- I am wearing them today. But with a blouse and wedge sandals (not flip flops).

I have 4 tattoos. And I specifically have them in places that can be covered. 2 of them are on my shoulder area and so depending on the top I have on, the corners can be seen. I try to avoid this, but it does happen. Then I tug at my shirt all day

I should also note that although I work in healthcare, I don't work in a clinic or hospital setting.

I totally get what you are saying. I really do...

I need to process through some other opinions I have that I think are tied into this...

Thanks for your response Sassy.

I know you said that you have some other opinions tied to this that you'll post after, but I just wanted to clarify a few things quickly, since I noticed I was a bit vague on a few things (seriously, a desire for perfectionism in my own communication/language skills doesn't even begin to describe me, so please forgive me ). I noticed that you gave a bit of your own personal background and that Jo gave something similar as well, and I just wanted to clarify that I don't just mean where we, as individuals, are coming from as far as our upbringing, but where these notions of what is/isn't professional/well-kept (beyond the obvious basic hygene issues, which always make things more...pleasant )/competent come from...which doesn't necessarily just mean our parents, their parents, their parents' parents etc., but the division of people according to station before the birth of the modern era. In medieval Europe (well, Christian medieval Europe since Heathen society differed region to region/tribe to tribe and in many cases were more "democratic" than Christian society, though as the medieval period ended we can consider the entrance of the middle/merchant class as an almost direct result of the effects of the bubonic plague) there was said to be three primary classes: the fighting class, the praying class and the working class. All three classes could be easily identified by their attire, though things became more complex with the entrance of the merchant class (and in fact it was with this class and the resulting bourgeoisie, that what might be termed a true Judeo-Christian patriarchy began to dismantle itself/crumble in upon itself), which led to early modern class division and perhaps even the mimicry of upper-class dress by lower class/emerging merchant class (to clarify, I do not mean "lower class" in any sort of a demeaning way, but as a recognition of contemporary social hierarchy) individuals in order to create that notion of what constitutes professionalism or appropriate workplace attire. If this is not the case, then why is it that what has always been seen as "professional" and "respectable" has reflected the attire popular among the "upper-classes," while what is "casual" the traditional dress of the "lower classes" or even non-Christian groups (certain popular tattoos and hairstyles originating from non-Christian groups from Europe, North America, Africa etc.)? Perhaps even a reflection of what we take seriously, and don't take seriously.

Just some food for thought.

[JustJo]

Interesting points EnderD...

For me, I find that I would question the competence, success, ability or attitude of a CPA or doctor in ripped jeans and flip flops. Maybe it's not right or fair, but it's there. And, in a weird way....I would take their attire as being disrespectful of me, and of the professional relationship we are sharing.

Maybe that sounds odd....but it would be like someone showing up for a first date in ripped jeans and flip flops. It's saying "I don't choose to make an effort to appear at my best for you"...or maybe "my own comfort is more important to me than anything else"...or maybe this is all just my own stuff.

Clothing has always been used, not just to cover ourselves, but to announce who we are to the world...our status, our preferences, our own individual style, or the groups we belong to. For me, tattoos and piercings do some of the same thing. As ravfem pointed out...the blatantly racist or sexist tattoos make a clear statement about group affiliation and beliefs...and can/are/might be used to purposely intimidate or make someone uncomfortable.

I'm sure that there are as many reasons to get tattoos and piercings as there are people...and I get that it's artwork or remembrance or celebration for a lot of them. It starts to be a question of what kind and how much though. I'm thinking of the "lizard man" who lives in our area, who has done everything he can possibly do with tattoos and piercings and implants to look as lizard-like as possible. For me, that's an intentional statement (and yes, an extreme case). I don't want to go to him for medical care or financial advice. Might not be fair...but it's reality...and I'm guessing he knew it when he made those choices too.

On the far less extreme "average" piercings and tattoos...it's still my choice as a business owner to decide how to present my business to the public. I may intentionally want to project an atmosphere and image of staid conservatism....and lots of pierced, tattooed, flip flop wearing employees aren't going to do that.

Employers can get mired in the "how much/where/what kind" debate - and open themselves up to discrimination lawsuits if they say "tattoos of flowers and dolphins are fine, but images of skulls and spiders aren't." Most opt for the simpler "no visible tattoos" policy because it is more easily interpreted fairly.

[Chancie]

I can't remember whether I've posted on this thread.

I have a few visible piercings and tattoos.

Somehow, my overall image still screams middle aged high school math teacher, but

I have 31 stars crawling up the side of my left leg, and

There is an abstract design on the inside of my right ankle.

There is a tiny diamond stud in my nose and

I have a few non traditional pieces of jewelry in both ears.

Some people think it helps my somewhat reluctant math students to relate to me, but

I don't know what parents think when we meet me, though

I think some of them are relieved that

I do not appear as stuffy as their own high school math teachers.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by JustJo

Interesting points EnderD...

For me, I find that I would question the competence, success, ability or attitude of a CPA or doctor in ripped jeans and flip flops. Maybe it's not right or fair, but it's there. And, in a weird way....I would take their attire as being disrespectful of me, and of the professional relationship we are sharing.

Hi Jo,

I'm not particularly worried about whether it is right or fair as the terms are pretty subjective, but what I am curious about is the logic behind the notion and how it resonates with similar beliefs regarding different groups in the past and present; whether it is something that truly speaks of an individual's "professionalism" (better defined by behaviour and achievement rather than dress) or if it is something engrained. And if it is something engrained, then where does it stem from and what is its purpose? I can understand questioning the attitude of a doctor who dresses in such a manner, but what I don't understand is questioning his/her competence, success (which can be ascertained by inquiring into their work history, if it truly is an issue) and ability. He/she may not be concerned with with what you think of his flip flops and ripped jeans, but, rather, in the manner by which he/she is able to help you (far more important, in my opinion).

Furthermore, how do we address what is and isn't professional to each individual, and how do we address the individual's desire to dress in such a manner that suits his/her own identity (if we are going to respect a person's identity at all in the workplace)? I want to go back to the example of gender and religious issues in the workplace that I gave earlier on. It also raises the question on whether a person should be allowed to wear religious clothing in the workplace (assuming it does not become a safety issue). Slavoj Zizek touched a little on this issue during his discussion on the issue of whether or not to ban burqas in France, and while the discussion may seem, initially, removed from our current discussion, I do believe it is helpful to the discussion.

"It is, however, not enough to submit this law to pragmatic criticism, such as the claim that, if implemented, it will only increase the oppression of Muslim women, since they will simply not be allowed to leave home and thus be even more cut off from societ, exposed to harsh treatment within forced marriages, etc. (Furthermore, the fine will exacerabte the problems of poverty and joblessness: it will punish the very women who are least likely to have control over their own money.) ... The next curious feature is the ambiguity of the critique of the burqa: it moves at two levels. First, it is presented as a defense of the dignity and freedom of oppressed Muslim women - it is unacceptable that, in a secular Frence, any woman has to live a hidden life secluded from public space, subordinated to brutal patriarchal authority, and so on. Secondly, however, as a rule the argument then shifts towards the anxieties of non-Muslim French people: faces covered by the burqa do not fit with the coordinates of French culture and identity, they 'intimidate and alienate non-Muslims' ... Some French women have even suggested that they perceived the wearing of a burqa as their own humiliation, as being brutally excluded, rejected from a social link."

I added the italics to "intimidate" and "alienate" because that is primarily where the passage correlates with our discussion. How far do we go in assuring that no one is intimidated, alienated or disrespected in a professional or public relationship, and how much control can we have over the issue when we have little control over what causes the feeling of intimidation, alienation and disrespect? On the one hand you have French women who feel intimidated and alienated/excluded an rejected, and on the other hand you have Muslim women who may or may not be forced into wearing a burqa for religious reasons. French society translates this as blatant disregard for the rights of women in France, while French women see it as humiliating even for themselves who are not the ones wearing the burqa. Both sides might be accused of "backward" conservatism and intolerance, yet simultaneously of representing freedom of the individual.

A person may just as well be intimidated or feel disrespected by the presence of a butch dressed in traditionally male clothing, as they might feel disrespected by a doctor in flip flops and ripped jeans. How far do we go in limiting freedom of dress in the workplace in a Western society that preaches tolerance and equality among all people?

Originally Posted by JustJo

Maybe that sounds odd....but it would be like someone showing up for a first date in ripped jeans and flip flops. It's saying "I don't choose to make an effort to appear at my best for you"...or maybe "my own comfort is more important to me than anything else"...or maybe this is all just my own stuff.

And what if that individual in said ripped jeans and flip flops proceeds with the utmost courtesy, engages you in lively and thought-provoking conversation, listens intently to all you have to say and overall comports themselves in an extremely thoughtful and pleasant manner. Have they not chosen to respect you (and I don't mean you specifically, but a general "you") in believing you capable of judging them on their actions and words rather than appearance? Is it not possible to understand such an action as a sign of respect in that they feel no need to paint themselves as something they are not? In a way it can be interpreted as an expression of faith in you.

Originally Posted by JustJo

Clothing has always been used, not just to cover ourselves, but to announce who we are to the world...our status, our preferences, our own individual style, or the groups we belong to. For me, tattoos and piercings do some of the same thing. As ravfem pointed out...the blatantly racist or sexist tattoos make a clear statement about group affiliation and beliefs...and can/are/might be used to purposely intimidate or make someone uncomfortable.

I agree on your first point, however, I have a few qualms with the second point. I think that the subject you bring up here is actually somewhat seperate from the rest of the discussion and maybe threatens to derail the thread? I hesitate to address it unless Sassy doesn't mind. I think I may have derailed her thread enough as it is.

Originally Posted by JustJo

It starts to be a question of what kind and how much though. I'm thinking of the "lizard man" who lives in our area, who has done everything he can possibly do with tattoos and piercings and implants to look as lizard-like as possible. For me, that's an intentional statement (and yes, an extreme case). I don't want to go to him for medical care or financial advice. Might not be fair...but it's reality...and I'm guessing he knew it when he made those choices too.

The "reality" of it is actually a part of my question. Why is this reality? I am often told that such and such a thing is simply "reality," yet if we look at how the world has changed from one reality to another, it is because people are willing to analyse and actively change a reality they do not agree with that we are where we are to begin with.

Actually, Zizek offers some insight on that subject as well in his discussion of the burqa...not sure if it applies, but see what you think of it anyway.

"This brings us to the true enigma here: why does the encounter with a face covered by a burqa trigger such anxiety? Is it that a face so covered is no longer the Levinasian face: that Otherness from which the unconditional ethical call emanates? But what if the opposite is the case? From a Freudian perspective, the face is the ultimate mask that conceals the horror of the Neighbor-Thing: the face is what makes the Neighbor le semblable, a fellow-man with whom we can identify and empathize. (Not to mention the fact that, today, many faces are surgically modified and thus deprived of the last vestiges of natural authenticity.) This, then, is why the covered face causes such anxiety: because it confronts us directly with the abyss of the Other-Thing, with the Neighbor in its uncanny dimension. The very covering-up of the face [arguably equally applicable in the case of the tattooed face of the "lizard man."] obliterates a protective shield, so that the Other-Thing stares at us directly."

Both Zizek quotes can be found on page 2 of his Living In the End Times (second page of his first chapter, Denial: The Liberal Utopia).

Originally Posted by JustJo

On the far less extreme "average" piercings and tattoos...it's still my choice as a business owner to decide how to present my business to the public. I may intentionally want to project an atmosphere and image of staid conservatism....and lots of pierced, tattooed, flip flop wearing employees aren't going to do that.

I agree that you have that choice, yes.

Originally Posted by JustJo

Employers can get mired in the "how much/where/what kind" debate - and open themselves up to discrimination lawsuits if they say "tattoos of flowers and dolphins are fine, but images of skulls and spiders aren't." Most opt for the simpler "no visible tattoos" policy because it is more easily interpreted fairly.

I think that soon many employers (particularly of large companies) are going to be "forced" to change these policies due to the rise of...well...my generation Many employers have already changed such conservative policies. Even the academic sphere and "image" itself is changing, because more and more you have brilliant undergraduates eventually getting their Masters, getting their doctorates and all the while doing so in full sleeves and foot tall mohawks (should have seen the last T.A. I had...I'm pretty sure I could have put my fist through his earlobe lol). "Oddly" enough, in my experience most of those who have appeared "other than the norm" in my university courses have been among the most dedicated to their area of study. Some of the best professors I've ever had have come to class looking like they just rolled out of bed...and proceeded to give some of the most amazing lectures I've ever attended. Maybe they were disrespecting me, maybe they had immense respect for me and my fellow students or maybe it has nothing to do with respect or disrespect.

[JustJo]

Hi EnderD,

I'm having a stressed out brain-dead couple of days, so please forgive in advance...

I totally get what you're saying about the dedicated and inspiring professors, and also that considerate and thoughtful date who also happens to show up in flip-flops and torn jeans. I guess the difference is that of first impression vs. known entity. If I show up in the ER on the verge of a diabetic coma, it's true that I want the most capable doctors and nurses regardless of their appearance. It's also true that I don't have the opportunity to learn of their background or training...and much of my first impression is going to be based on appearances and presentation. I'll have more confidence in those that look "professional" - at least until I have a direct experience of their ability.

Your question about religious clothing is different to me. For me, someone who is presenting themselves in alignment with the traditions of their faith or culture is very different from someone presenting as "counter-culture" ...sorry, can't find a good word to express that thought today. I'm in NY, and encounter Amish folks and ultra-orthodox Jews on a regular basis. Both groups dress and present themselves in ways that aren't "normal" according to the larger culture but are perfectly correct within their own group...and to me.

And...back to that date in the torn jeans...my first impression may be negative, but that doesn't mean it won't change with actual experience of that person.

I know I haven't responded to all of your points...and I'll be back once my brain is re-installed.

[Random]

Originally Posted by Chancie

I can't remember whether I've posted on this thread.

I have a few visible piercings and tattoos.

Somehow, my overall image still screams middle aged high school math teacher, but

I have 31 stars crawling up the side of my left leg, and

There is an abstract design on the inside of my right ankle.

There is a tiny diamond stud in my nose and

I have a few non traditional pieces of jewelry in both ears.

Some people think it helps my somewhat reluctant math students to relate to me, but

I don't know what parents think when we meet me, though

I think some of them are relieved that

I do not appear as stuffy as their own high school math teachers.

Lol..

This reminded me of My ex's daughter..

Full shoulder/upper arm sleeve plus several others
Nose pierced/lil ear stretching
Rides a motor cycle (she is such a tiny thing too)

She is a Nuclear Physicist in her Dr. Program

Ya... not exactly comes to mind when you think math nerd...

[lipstixgal]

I'm in the healthcare field and we have to wear scrubs and closed toed shoes tomorrow I'm going to a health fair and need to wear my scrubs probably my school scrubs

[tuffboi29]

I'm just going throw in my for what it's worth.

The best doc I've had the privilage to be seen by was far from the "norm" in his professional setting.
Now, where as he was dressed nicely, he had made no attempt to cover any of his tatts or hide his peircings. The man had full sleeves (he was wearing a short sleeved shirt) and several facial/ear piercings.
He was curtious, professionally mannered,and had a great attitude.

I only wish the other doctors/medical professionals I've ever seen throughout my life acted the way he did.

Looking past the tatts and peircings, I find I would rather see exhibited the mannerisms than appearence.

Although, I would agree...Flip-flops DON'T belong at most jobs.

(keep in mind this comes from one who wishes eventually to set off metal detectors AND have a professional job)

[swagger]

As well as thinking about clients' and bosses' reactions - there might be a safety component too. For example, perhaps someone working with kids or whatever shouldn't have the kind of facial jewellery that could get grabbed by little hands.