[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?