Community >> View Thread

Author
Paladin


Location: Prague, Bohemia
Member Since: Tue Apr 06, 2010
Posts: 1,354


Hi guys, Ive been away for awhile. thought I'd check in with a recent experience.

I recently sat in on a US led seminar in Asia about job discrimination. Quite a lot of different ways to unfairly discriminate against people in the work force, by gender, by race, by age (in Asia, ageism is a big thing, with people over 35 considered too old for ordinary jobs), by nationality. All disagreeable practices, I think we can agree.

But then they had "discrimination against people with tattoos." (In Asia, tattoos are associated with prostitution and gangsters).

I kind of resented tattoos being put on a level plane with these others. I mean things like your age, your race, your country of birth, etc are things you can't control, unlike the choice to get a tattoo. I mean if I'm an employer and I see someone who got a stupid face or forearm tattoo, I wouldn't consider it unfair discrimination to hold that against the candidate. I mean that was their choice (and is clear evidence of bad judgement to get something permanent like that.)

I mean, I think people can get whatever body art they want, but should have to live with the employment concequences. Putting tattoos in the same conversation as race or gender is pretty insulting to those with real greviances.


Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.132 on Windows 7
Incriptus


Location: Incriptus
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,537


Other people could easily have tattoos as part of their culture




Only Drax the Legend can quote Drax the Legend. NT ยท Drax the Legend
Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.132 on Windows 10
Paladin


Location: Prague, Bohemia
Member Since: Tue Apr 06, 2010
Posts: 1,354


Ok,

If its part of your culture and you are applying for a job in that culture it wouldn't make a difference.

If you are applying for a job in a different culture, then don't be surprised if its held against you. it was still a choice. If you go to Japan and apply for a job with something that looks like a yakuza tattoo then don't complain about discrimination. it was a choice, not like your race or age.

Unless your culture forced you to get that tattoo. then it is a barbaric practice that damages peoples bodies unnecessarily and should go the way of footbinding and corsets, in my humble opinion.

Even if a tattoo is cultural, it is not equal in any way to skin colour.


Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.132 on Windows 10
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 16,811


I agree with you to a point. Although to me it depends on the job as to how much it matters and the nature of the tattoo. Is it in the open? Is it small?

It is a different monster for sure than the other things you point out but it is more a matter of social acceptability for a given job.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.132 on Windows 10
The Black Guardian

Moderator

Location: Paragon City, RI
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 25,919


I think tattoos fall into the category of general appearance, and I don't agree with any sort of discrimination based on it, except for extremely rare cases. I could see facial hair interfering if your job required wearing a mask. Basically, I only agree if it directly affects job performance. I don't even agree with judging based on clothing.

To be very blunt about it, the only reasons for negative opinions about tattoos are pure ignorance. There are really no valid reasons for discrimination based on them. Nothing about a tattoo affects or is dependent upon the type of person the inked person is. Today, there isn't necessarily a criminal element to them. I've met one inked doctor, a few inked lawyers, several inked nurses, more inked teachers than I care to count.

I'm sort of guilty of discrimination too when it comes to facial tatts, but when I examine myself, I realize there's really no reason for that. Would I be the same if the person had some sort of facial blemish? Hardly. So, no big deal.

It all depends on at least two factors: the type of job and the type of artwork, mostly.




City of Heroes is BACK!
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 10
Paladin


Location: Prague, Bohemia
Member Since: Tue Apr 06, 2010
Posts: 1,354


Hey, thanks for your reply but it doesn't really address the point I was trying to make. I disagree with equating things you can control (tattoos, clothing, hair length, etc) with things you can't control (age, race, sex, etc) when it comes to discrimination.

I don't think a facial blemish and a facial tattoo are in the same catergory.

I would equate tattoos more in the realm of clothing or hair length. If I interview a guy for a job wearing a bright pink suit, I think I would be justified in holding that against him if thats not the image I want my company to project. It just shows poor judgement towards what is currently acceptable in society, just like a facial tattoo. I would feel pretty insulted if the guy then tried to equate himself with someone discriminated against due to their race, for instance.

I think its important not to equate the two catergories.

thanks again for your response. Sorry if my point was unclear.




Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.132 on Windows 7
Comicguy1


Member Since: Tue Apr 04, 2017
Posts: 1,448


They USED to be cool and for really tough and rebellious people and criminals and army personnel, but now pretty much everyone has one. It's just passe at this point. I could understand if you get a tattoo to honor a family member or the death of a loved one (Or close friend.), but a lot of people just do it to be "Cool!". And I REALLY don't get people who have tattoo sleeves. I mean, you tattoo your entire arm or leg? Maybe there is something to tattoos being addicting, because clearly that's not normal. To get to your question though, I can see both sides. In most cases, I don't think that it would be a problem, but as you said if it involves a professional job, it certainly can be. I also think that everyone discriminates to a certain extent (We do it all the time when we date.), and while I don't agree with it, I do tend to believe that it should be up to the employer. I mean, after all, they are paying and providing for you.


Posted with Google Chrome 56.0.2924.87 on Linux
The Black Guardian

Moderator

Location: Paragon City, RI
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 25,919



    Quote:
    Hey, thanks for your reply but it doesn't really address the point I was trying to make. I disagree with equating things you can control (tattoos, clothing, hair length, etc) with things you can't control (age, race, sex, etc) when it comes to discrimination.

That's my point. I do not. All of this sort of discrimination is petty and worthless. They are all forms of discrimination that have nothing, whatsoever, to do with jobs or job performance. They don't even affect personal interactions.

You can't just say I'm not addressing your point when I'm totally addressing it. It doesn't work that way.

And then you bring up things you can control? Um... you can control religion. So, that's totally cool to discriminate against? Yeah, I'm thinking the ability to control something isn't really relevant.


    Quote:
    I don't think a facial blemish and a facial tattoo are in the same catergory.

And there's no valid reason for thinking this. None. At all.


    Quote:
    I would equate tattoos more in the realm of clothing or hair length. If I interview a guy for a job wearing a bright pink suit, I think I would be justified in holding that against him if thats not the image I want my company to project. It just shows poor judgement towards what is currently acceptable in society, just like a facial tattoo. I would feel pretty insulted if the guy then tried to equate himself with someone discriminated against due to their race, for instance.



    Quote:
    I think its important not to equate the two catergories.

And I think it's morally wrong for doing so.




City of Heroes is BACK!
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 10
Paladin


Location: Prague, Bohemia
Member Since: Tue Apr 06, 2010
Posts: 1,354


Ok gotcha.

So you think a person who claims to be discriminated against for having long hair or dressing in a bikini on a job interview has just as much of a grievance as someone who is discriminated against for being black?

Interesting way to look at things. I don't agree but I understand your point now.

While we can agree discrimination is bad, I think there are different levels. Kinda like crime. A jaywalker and a murderer are both criminals but I think we can agree painting them with the same brush isn't productive.

Which was why I didn't think tattoos are on the same level as race or gender.

As you pointed out, we are all a bit prejuduced when it comes to these things. I imagine if you went to the dentist and he had a big swastika tattoo on his forehead you would have no problem with it. Shouldn't we judge that?


By webster's definition of discrimination, every job interview is discriminatory. You are discriminating against people who are less compentent for those who are more compentent.

Anyway, thanks for your reply.


Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.132 on Windows 10
Paladin


Location: Prague, Bohemia
Member Since: Tue Apr 06, 2010
Posts: 1,354



    Quote:
    They USED to be cool and for really tough and rebellious people and criminals and army personnel, but now pretty much everyone has one. It's just passe at this point. I could understand if you get a tattoo to honor a family member or the death of a loved one (Or close friend.), but a lot of people just do it to be "Cool!". And I REALLY don't get people who have tattoo sleeves. I mean, you tattoo your entire arm or leg? Maybe there is something to tattoos being addicting, because clearly that's not normal. To get to your question though, I can see both sides. In most cases, I don't think that it would be a problem, but as you said if it involves a professional job, it certainly can be. I also think that everyone discriminates to a certain extent (We do it all the time when we date.), and while I don't agree with it, I do tend to believe that it should be up to the employer. I mean, after all, they are paying and providing for you.


Great point. I mean in most jobs, employers can tell you what you can and can't wear. You are representing their company, after all. If you don't agree, don't take the job. Tats should fall under the catergory of clothing. If you can cover them up, then I can't imagine the'd be an issue at all.




Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.132 on Windows 10
Comicguy1


Member Since: Tue Apr 04, 2017
Posts: 1,448




Posted with Google Chrome 48.0.2564.116 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 3,088


Seems reasonable and agree...sleeves are for the truly dedicated to getting inked. But they should realize there are ramifications for their actions of they are required to represent a business they are working for...that it could be negative.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
The Black Guardian

Moderator

Location: Paragon City, RI
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 25,919



    Quote:
    Ok gotcha.

    So you think a person who claims to be discriminated against for having long hair or dressing in a bikini on a job interview has just as much of a grievance as someone who is discriminated against for being black?

    Interesting way to look at things. I don't agree but I understand your point now.

    While we can agree discrimination is bad, I think there are different levels. Kinda like crime. A jaywalker and a murderer are both criminals but I think we can agree painting them with the same brush isn't productive.

Obviously there are different levels and you're purposely being obtuse. But ideally, yes, we should never be concerned about what a person wears. And especially, yes, hair style should never, ever be a reason for not considering a person for a job, unless it directly affects their job.

But screw suits and ties-- a couple of the most worthless things ever created. And imo, not one of them has ever looked good.


    Quote:
    Which was why I didn't think tattoos are on the same level as race or gender.

It's still a completely irrational and superficial reason to discriminate.


    Quote:
    As you pointed out, we are all a bit prejuduced when it comes to these things. I imagine if you went to the dentist and he had a big swastika tattoo on his forehead you would have no problem with it. Shouldn't we judge that?

I've already said that I'm guilty of it, and that it all depends on the job and the artwork. When it comes to anything Nazi-related, I don't even want the person living in the same country as I do.

This goes deeper than just judging based on tattoos. I'm not judging that the person has tattoos. I'm judging them as a person for what they are clearly choosing to represent themselves. I might be okay with an Iron Cross, because that's not specifically Nazi, and I'd be cool with Norse-style swastikas (put as many of them you want wherever you want), but not Nazi-style swastikas.

But it might be totally awesome cool to have a dentist with a big tribal mark on their face (like maybe something like Mike Tyson's). I'm being kinda facetious here. Facial tatts are something that I question, but I feel lousy for it when I self examine, because it does go against what I firmly believe.

Incidentally, I know a dentist that has a cuff on his right forearm. It's very visible when he works. He's not my dentist, but I wouldn't care if he was. I know a nurse with a tattoo collar (and many, many other tatts), and I totally want her attending me whenever I'm sick.


    Quote:

    By webster's definition of discrimination, every job interview is discriminatory. You are discriminating against people who are less compentent for those who are more compentent.

My dictionary says, "The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things." But whatever. There are several definitions, so cherry pick to your content. Competence is a valid criterion to judge, not what a person looks like for whatever reason, unless looks are a major part of the job duties (basically, just acting/modeling).




City of Heroes is BACK!
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 10
Paladin


Location: Prague, Bohemia
Member Since: Tue Apr 06, 2010
Posts: 1,354



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Ok gotcha.



      Quote:
      So you think a person who claims to be discriminated against for having long hair or dressing in a bikini on a job interview has just as much of a grievance as someone who is discriminated against for being black?



      Quote:
      Interesting way to look at things. I don't agree but I understand your point now.



      Quote:
      While we can agree discrimination is bad, I think there are different levels. Kinda like crime. A jaywalker and a murderer are both criminals but I think we can agree painting them with the same brush isn't productive.

    Obviously there are different levels and you're purposely being obtuse. But ideally, yes, we should never be concerned about what a person wears. And especially, yes, hair style should never, ever be a reason for not considering a person for a job, unless it directly affects their job.


No, Im intentionally being obtuse, just trying to qualify your position. I just see things differently. I think an employer is within their rights to effect a dress code (within reason of course). After all, they are paying the salary. And I think tattoos fall under the catergory of dress


    Quote:
    But screw suits and ties-- a couple of the most worthless things ever created. And imo, not one of them has ever looked good.


You probably shouldn't discriminate against people who prefer suits and ties.:-)


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Which was why I didn't think tattoos are on the same level as race or gender.

    It's still a completely irrational and superficial reason to discriminate.
      Quote:

        Quote:
        As you pointed out, we are all a bit prejuduced when it comes to these things. I imagine if you went to the dentist and he had a big swastika tattoo on his forehead you would have no problem with it. Shouldn't we judge that?

      I've already said that I'm guilty of it, and that it all depends on the job and the artwork. When it comes to anything Nazi-related, I don't even want the person living in the same country as I do.


Obviously I'm having fun with you but my point is, if we treat everyone as equal, then a nazi symbol and a tribal facial symbol should carry the same weight. You seem to be saying, don't judge people by the art they display on their bodies, unless its nazi.

I don't mean to put words in your mouth but thats the impression I get. I think its perfectly fine to see nothing wrong with tattoos. But then that should apply to all tattoos equally, even if you don't like them.

I would certainly see a difference between a nazi tatto and another tattoo, but then again Im not the one claiming all discrimination is equal:-)


    Quote:
    This goes deeper than just judging based on tattoos. I'm not judging that the person has tattoos. I'm judging them as a person for what they are clearly choosing to represent themselves. I might be okay with an Iron Cross, because that's not specifically Nazi, and I'd be cool with Norse-style swastikas (put as many of them you want wherever you want), but not Nazi-style swastikas.



    Quote:
    But it might be totally awesome cool to have a dentist with a big tribal mark on their face (like maybe something like Mike Tyson's). I'm being kinda facetious here. Facial tatts are something that I question, but I feel lousy for it when I self examine, because it does go against what I firmly believe.


Its good you can be honest here. To be honest, I think in 20 years time, most western societies will accept face tattoos. we just arent there yet. (Hence I would avoid hiring a facial tattoo for my law firm, for instance. Moreso from the social implications of clients they would work with.)


    Quote:
    Incidentally, I know a dentist that has a cuff on his right forearm. It's very visible when he works. He's not my dentist, but I wouldn't care if he was. I know a nurse with a tattoo collar (and many, many other tatts), and I totally want her attending me whenever I'm sick.


Fair enough, I understand your point. Just still think there is a difference for things under our control and not. For me, tats fall under dress code, something the courts generally uphold. And it makes sense that there would be different definitions of discrimination, just like, in my opinion, there are different degrees.




PS English language question because I'm less familiar with the phrase "your content". Is that what it should be or is it "You're content"? Not questioning grammar here, I'm just unfamiliar with the correct usage of the expression (I'm not a native speaker.)


    Quote:

      Quote:

      By webster's definition of discrimination, every job interview is discriminatory. You are discriminating against people who are less compentent for those who are more compentent.

    My dictionary says, "The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things." But whatever. There are several definitions, so cherry pick to your content. Competence is a valid criterion to judge, not what a person looks like for whatever reason, unless looks are a major part of the job duties (basically, just acting/modeling).




Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.132 on Windows 7
Paladin


Location: Prague, Bohemia
Member Since: Tue Apr 06, 2010
Posts: 1,354


exactly.

But I think that most people who face tats or sleeves know what they are getting into. their art is more important than social implications. just don't complain if those social implications work against you.


Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.132 on Windows 7
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 3,088



    Quote:
    My dictionary says, "The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things." But whatever. There are several definitions, so cherry pick to your content. Competence is a valid criterion to judge, not what a person looks like for whatever reason, unless looks are a major part of the job duties (basically, just acting/modeling).


The my dictionary comment drives me nuts. When people do this they accidently or purposely trying to redefine a discussion or argument. They are changing the very language used in the discussion. People cannot freely exchange ideas if one person starts changing the meaning of the words used in a discussion according to their feelings about the word.

I don't mean how words change over time...I mean in the very discussion itself...might as well be speaking in a language the other person doesn't know.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
Comicguy1


Member Since: Tue Apr 04, 2017
Posts: 1,448


You're refers to You Are. For anything else, it is your. It's your right, You're right. I hope that clarifies.


Posted with Google Chrome 48.0.2564.116 on Windows 10
Trent Trueheart


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 815



    Quote:

      Quote:
      My dictionary says, "The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things." But whatever. There are several definitions, so cherry pick to your content. Competence is a valid criterion to judge, not what a person looks like for whatever reason, unless looks are a major part of the job duties (basically, just acting/modeling).



    Quote:
    The my dictionary comment drives me nuts. When people do this they accidently or purposely trying to redefine a discussion or argument. They are changing the very language used in the discussion. People cannot freely exchange ideas if one person starts changing the meaning of the words used in a discussion according to their feelings about the word.



    Quote:
    I don't mean how words change over time...I mean in the very discussion itself...might as well be speaking in a language the other person doesn't know.


I think the problem is that even if you're using the same words, people can have different ideas about what they mean. If you're going to have a conversation with someone, each side might have to define certain words in order to reach an understanding.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 10
Paladin


Location: Prague, Bohemia
Member Since: Tue Apr 06, 2010
Posts: 1,354


As far as I can tell, used in this context, "content" is being used as an adjective. eg "I am content". Therefore "You are content" makes more sense to me.

If "content" can be used as a noun here, I am unaware of it (it can be used as a noun for a separate usage, which is a homograph as in "lots of content", stressed on the first syllable as opposed to the 2nd) . As far as I have learnt, "contentment" is the abstract noun from "content".

To restate the Guardian's original statement "You can cherry pick until YOU ARE content." seems to make a lot more sense if "content" is an adjective and "contentment" is the noun. Grammatically speaking of course. "your content" only makes sense if "content" can be used as a noun (again in this particular usage.)

If you use it as an adjective, "a person is content" it can be replaced by another adjective, eg "happy". as in "a person is happy". but in general usage we cannot say "your happy". So by the same logic we can't say "your content".

It may seem like needless pedantry, but "your content" would violate this usage.


Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.132 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 3,088


Isnt that what Websters is for?


Posted with Google Chrome 58.0.3029.110 on Windows 10
Trent Trueheart


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 815



    Quote:
    Isnt that what Websters is for?


Websters? No man, OED all the way.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 10
Rolf_Rowan




They think tattoos are for slobs or low-class people.
probably because in their society only slobs and low-class people or criminals get tattoos.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software