<p>I think what many are saying here is it is irrelevant whether or not it is “okay to be classist”, they are dealing with the reality of what “is” rather than how they think it ought to be. Not everyone has the luxury of saying that they won’t work for anyone who would use such a superficial barometer of fitness for a job. Many people need to work to put food on the table and they don’t have large numbers of unconditional offers on the table, so they avoid displaying body art (or avoid getting it altogether) which could limit their job opportunities. For many, it’s not a matter of principle, but a matter of practical.</p>
<p>Oh, I definitely agree with the practical standpoint of it, and I personally wouldn’t get something that couldn’t be removed or covered up for the appropriate situations. More what I’m referring to in that case is the visceral reactions from some of the members of this very forum that seem to judge the entire merit of a person on their aesthetic choices, and it seems that what has come out is that these are markers of social class. I don’t believe that this is really what drives the negativity of all or most posters, at least not directly, but it seems that a lot of the distaste for tattoos and piercings are because they are associated with the low or working class. In that case, it becomes less of an issue of piercings and tattoos in and of themselves, but what they reflect. </p>
<p>I would say that my piercings are probably somewhat of a reflection that I am working class. But anybody who sees my resume will know that I am driven, hard-working, and intelligent. Further, anyone who calls my references will see that I am also a likeable person. So if it comes down to it that my piercings reflect little else other than the fact that I was raised working class, isn’t that really what I’m being judged on? Is it bad to have been raised low or working class?</p>
<p>Okay, are people really saying they don’t EVER see tattoos/facial piercings on upper middle class people? Or are they saying it is just not characteristic in general of this socioeconomic group? We can all come up with exceptions to any rule; that doesn’t really impact the truth of the generalization, does it? Wouldn’t you agree that in general, tattoos and facial piercings are less prevalent in this group?</p>
<p>Part of my initial problem is that I should’ve been more careful with my reading. Basically, what I was responding to is a poster you said you didn’t see those things on upper middle class people in the past. Though I am still somewhat responding to the fact that people do assume that people are of lower class simply on the basis of a piercing. </p>
<p>As for your second question, it depends entirely what age group you’re looking at. I’m sure it’s true of older adults, but as far as my peer group goes, the tattoo/piercing thing is maybe slightly more prevalent in lower or working class people, but it’s really normal all around. I know hip type kids who come from very wealthy/educated backgrounds who have piercings and tattoos, and plenty of wealthy girls from long island sporting belly button piercings, multiple ear piercings, or tattoos. Not anything crazy or out there like plugs or facial tattoos, but it’s definitely pretty normal.</p>
<p>^^^It could also be regional. Where I live, visible tattoos and multiple piercings (other than on the ears) are not common among wealthy people of any age.</p>
<p>I’m in New York, so that could be part of it. I definitely have kids of all classes in my building though, potentially skewed toward the upper classes because I live in a building that is the newest and most expensive (as an RA). There are also LOTS of RAs with facial piercings and visible tattoos, so perhaps part of my shock to the reactions in this thread is that it is so normal in the circles that I move in. (And my circle isn’t exactly made of ruffians.)</p>
<p>think Nrd is on the money with the comment some wordings here are misinterpreted. Some have said they question the judgment of someone that gets a visible tatt then wants in the professional world. Then someone else jumps in and says that person has unfairly judged the individual. No, that’s not what the person said. To “question” anything is neither judging it as approved or disapproved. In this context, it would be reserving judgment until further info was known. Unfortunately for the job applicant, often times an immediate approval is better than delayed decision. Those who favorably impress right away have a legitimate advantage.</p>
<p>Similarly, when I talked about working class and mullets, I am certainly not saying that no one high up in a company has a mullet. Unless I specifically say “no one has one” then it is intended as an opinion that is a generalization. Perhaps such miscommunication is the fault of the reader, perhaps the writer.</p>
<p>If the opinion given is that visible uncommon piercings and face tatts are less common for the well-to-do, then citing one example out of -who knows how many professors- does not show evidence disputing the opinion, in fact it bolsters the opinion.</p>
<p>SO go back to my Tammy Faye Bakker example. That style of makeup is associated with a very low, uneducated social class. Would you not react if someone interviewed for a receptionist position in your company, wearing that style of makeup? Would that be the image you would want your company to project? Assume the woman is otherwise capable, friendly, etc. What’s the difference?</p>
<p>Yep. I feel the same way about those gold “grillz” that rap stars wear on their teeth. Do you see a conceptual difference between that and tattoos?</p>
<p>hyperjulie, the fact that you live in New York and in a college community has an enormous amount to do with your perception of the prevalence of piercings and tattoos.</p>
<p>You do not seem to understand that when someone like me says that outre tattoos and piercings evoke a certain visceral reaction I am not saying that that reaction is either rational OR fair. I am simply being honest: it is what it is. And in fact YOU also have a reaction: you think the person is “hip.” (I would venture to guess that all of us, including YOU, would also make certain assumptions about a woman wearing simple pearl earrings with a matching strand of pearls around her neck. ) Moreover, no one has said that piercings or tattoos mean that a person is a “ruffian” or a “bad” human being. Nor has anyone said that individuals from a working class background are bad or lesser human beings. </p>
<p>And, as younghoss points out, we are dealing in generalities. The fact that exceptions exist is no surprise to anyone.</p>
<p>If some think it necessary to point out exceptions, I offer Martha Stewart. By most accounts a well-to-do entrepreneur, smart, lovely jewelry, tailored clothing, no visible tattoos, and physically attractive, yet she ended up with a stint in the pokey.
Explaining that people with visible tatts or piercings can be good people or good employees is really not at issue. I don’t think anyone has disputed that.</p>
<p>Consolation: I agree with you that one can’t help one’s visceral reactions. But I also think it’s important to recognize when those reactions are rooted in prejudice. For example, I have a certain knee-jerk door-slamming reaction when I see someone in black pants and a white shirt on my doorstep, but they can’t all be trying to convert me.</p>
<p>For example, I have a certain knee-jerk door-slamming reaction when I see someone in black pants and a white shirt on my doorstep, but they can’t all be trying to convert me.</p>
<p>LOL, dmd. I work for the Census Bureau–unbeknownst to many, the Census Bureau conducts ongoing surveys for various branches of government all the time, not just the decennial–and I will have to watch my step! I almost always wear black pants. Will have to avoid white tops. :D</p>
<p>"…yet she ended up with a stint in the pokey."</p>
<p>Hmm… it would be interesting to know what the ratio of tattooed inmates is to non-tattooed in the American penal system. That is not to say, of course, that tattoos have anything whatsoever to do with crime…maybe just something about the tastes of criminal minds…ooh, I can feel the scorching heat already.</p>
<p>I don’t really see the difference, nor did you answer my question. Taste does not reflect ability. My question is WHY it matters that it is a reflection of social class. Is it bad to be raised lower class?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t dispute that I have my own reactions to certain physical characteristics, but these are also in the context of “package.” I was describing the people I was referring to as hip not because they had piercings, but because that was their overall style - edgy, expensive, alternative-style clothing. People with piercings can just as easily look like bad news, perhaps in a context of a big guy with a huge beard, scars, tattoos of guns, etc. Or, like maybe people I encounter on a daily basis, they’re just people who look and dress otherwise entirely ordinary except for the piercings. However, I don’t make an assumption simply based on the piercing itself. It is all about context. The same would go for the pearls. I can just as easily imagine a friendly, clean-cut lady as a lady who is a total priss. (Most of the differentiation in my head between the two is based on facial expression and how precisely styled the hair is.)</p>
<p>My question is WHY it matters that it is a reflection of social class. Is it bad to be raised lower class?</p>
<p>I don’t know if I can express myself succinctly but I will try.</p>
<p>No- it isn’t bad to have ties to being of a certain caste or class.</p>
<p>However, unless who you are and what you do transcends class- like Gandhi or Mother Teresa, how you fit into the world and how effective you will be able to be, is affected by how others perceive you.</p>
<p>A neutral speech pattern is more favorable than a strong accent- in general.
Being able to move in different business/social circles is often necessary & being accepted in the particular circle can be hindered if you have identifiable markings that label you as someone who doesn’t fit.</p>
<p>Perhaps your current social circle has piercings and tattoos as desirable or at least neutral markers as compared to others in the circle.</p>
<p>But unless you know you are going to remain tied to the that circle, then permanent markers establishing the link are inadvisable.</p>
<p>An example would be an artist or musician who has tattoos, even though they come into regular contact with those who don’t . They are given special dispensation because they are in a creative field- but there still can be times when perhaps a patron is put off by their appearance which could cost in commissions. It just depends on how strongly you feel about the option to decorate yourself even if it could set you back in other ways.</p>
<p>leanid-no scorching heat. For those involved in the penal system, tattoos do have something to do with crime. The type/color/placement are often an identifier for gang affiliation. Yeah, I’ve spent too much time the last 2 years helping with criminal justice term papers.</p>