I am curious, what do people think about hair-colour, tattoos, piercings etc at work? Can/should these things be able to be banned because of the image of 'professionalism', or is this discrimination?

For many people, tattoos and piercings are associated with lower achievers, lower hygeine standards, and drug and alcohol abuse.
Why is that?
It's probably the result of personal observation.
My confidence in the hospital suffered a blow when I saw my husband's post operative major lung surgery was in the hands of a nurse with a stud encrusted face. Maybe I'm prejudiced but I think employers should be able to discriminate in those circumstances and dictate a dress code.
Hygeine is a concern in hospitals too, neck ties and nail extensions have been found to habour germs, so just imagine what must be hopping aound in piercing orifices!
A president or Prime Minister with tats and peircings? I don't think so.
At what level does it become OK? Maybe be in jobs that are out of sight, like call centre staff.

Yes, it's discrimination but these people are not yet a protected class. An acquaintance of mine was tattooed down on side of her body. The tats were visible on her neck, her arm to the wrist, and her leg to the ankle. She interviewed for a job as a receptionist at a very expensive law firm. She said she thought she didn't get the job because of the tattoos. I said, "Duh!"

Hi guys,

I'm actually the OP, but apparently the formatting of |evan> is so unusual it's quite difficult to log in.

Christine O says that she can't imagine a PM with tattoos or facial piercings. I am curious, is this that you cannot imagine a PM with tattoos/piercings being voted in, or that you don't think a someone with tatts/piercings *should* be voted in?

If the second, what are the reasons?

Deleted by Hunter

Well, I can imagine a Prime Minister or President with tattooes and facial piercings, but I don't like doing so because of the accompanying feeling of dread I get in the pit of my stomach.
I'm sure there are plenty of absolute darlings out there with the afore mentioned adornments, however there are unfortunately for them more characters giving bad PR. I include bikies and folk sticking a rude finger up at the media cameras as they leave after an appearance at the criminal courts.
Of course I can only talk about visible tatts/piercings, we may have already voted in some wearers of the hidden variety.

Christine O, sounds like you're giving in to stereotyping.

When someone says, I believe "x", then I can assume they will act upon that, and I don't consider that stereotyping. There are some beliefs that have visual indicators, and religion pops us as an easy example, although of course there are so many subsets of religion that it is still difficult to be too specific.

However, I don't know that hair colour, tattoos, piercings, etc. are an indicator of belief in the same way that, for instance, a burqa is.

I don't understand how your general feeling of dread in regards to an aesthetic is a rational way to evaluate a political candidate, rather than your assessment of their policies.

McFate,
Why do people choose to tattoo their face or put studs and rings in it? I interpret it as a statement of anarchy, so it's not appropriate to liken my reaction to normal stereotyping for this reason.
I have no problem with people expressing their beliefs or origins by wearing burqas, turbans, African national dress or anythng else.
Actually its the lack of any belief and disrespect for anyone else's that I find threatening especially with facial mutilations.
There is a middle aged female security guard working around here with heavily tattoed lips and face. She looks pretty scary but is a Maori, so I assume she has cultural reasons for her decorations.
Probably tattoes like that were applied to put fear into enemies in olden times.
Why do people do it now?
I've got a feeling its still to scare people on some level.

Why do people choose to tattoo their face or put studs and rings in it?

It's a good question. The people whom I know that have tattoos/hair colour/piercings have not done it as a statement of anarchy, though that does not mean that no one has. As a "newer" mainstream aesthetic, it is definitely "non-conforming" to the extent that all new things are (simply by virtue of not being existing things). As far as I can see, however, there is no single statement or belief being indicated by the quite varying aesthetics included here, and it does seem a bit like stereotyping to me to bring them under the single umbrella of "scaring people".

I do not see a direct correlation between piercings etc. and a "lack of belief and disrespect for anyone else's [belief]", unless I am missing some applicable data.

Piercings and tattoos are a fashion statement. As such, they are a gesture of conformity, rather than a gesture of nonconformity. Fashion is about belonging, communication and connection. It’s not a coincidence that teenagers are the most prone to want, and get, tattoos, and we are never more conformist than when we are in our teens.

In so far as they have negative associations, for me it is with judgment, wisdom and foresight and the (desirable, in my view) capacity to defer gratification. Fashion is ephemeral but tattoos are all but permanent. The more conspicuous, eye-catching and startling a tattoo is, the more likely it is that the wearer will come to regret having got it. A discreet rose on the ankle is one thing, but a spider-web centred on the left eye stretching from ear to chin is another.

A reasonably accurate inch rule tatooed on male anatomy may well be a joke and a great conversation piece, but one would not show it at the front desk.

It would seem that the surge in fashionable tattoes started after the 1970's with the punk music fad.
The young working classes in England felt alienated from society and the punk culture gave them a kind of badge of identification with others. Anyone remember the Sex Pistols' song called "Anarchy in he UK"? The tattoo fashion has filtered down into mainstream use now, but has the punk philosophy?

http://sites.google.com/site/johnmichae ... subculture
What about bondage fashion? Personally I don't like to see young teenage girls in clothes with a bondage theme. Personally I'd be happy if bondage never became mainstream.

Deleted by Hunter

Yeah, cool, Christine, you don't like the idea of bondage fashion, but the question is not whether you like it, but whether people should be discriminated against for wearing it.

Mcfate,
Yes, that's right I don't like bondge fashion and if a girl came for a job in my child care centre wearing it, I would perhaps discriminate against her.
Some people don't like the wearing of the swastika symbol and would discriminate against person's wearing it, although it's just an ancient lucky charm to Hindu people.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4188141.stm

It just depends what pushes your buttons.

I would generally place the swastika symbol, especially in its red, black and white incarnation, as a visual indicator of a certain set of beliefs. And of course, overtness, placement, colour, and other indicators might put it in context of Nazi-ism of Hindu-ism. If a customer came into my store, I wouldn't treat them differently if they had coloured hair, piercings, bondage apparel, or a swastika. But if I had to employ a Jewish liaison, I might have to investigate the beliefs of the person to see if there was a conflict of interest.

However, the swastika (as well as many other symbols) have history associated with them. Associated history waxes and wanes (the Hindu significance of the swastika has waned in Western culture, and the Nazi significance has waxed).

So I assume that hair colouring, piercings, tattoos, and bondage apparel (I don't think I know what this is, by the way) have particular associations for you, and I'm guessing for others. I'm curious as to what associations you see for these aesthetics. I've seen the association with trying to be fearsome - do you think this is true of some, most or all people with these aesthetics? Are there other associations?

I guess for me, I wonder that, if I'm not allowed to discriminate against customers, am I allowed to discriminate against staff for the same reasons?

"I guess for me, I wonder that, if I'm not allowed to discriminate against customers, am I allowed to discriminate against staff for the same reasons?"

You cannot discriminate gainst an employee or a customer based on race. You can discriminate against an employee or a customer for reasons that aren't on the list for protection.

That is the current law, I guess. But the purpose of the forum is to talk about what we think is ethical, and then we can ask, Does the law match this?

There's no point having an ethics forum that defers all opinion to the law, we have to ask, Why do we believe that the law is correct?

Mcfate,
We all make assessments based on first impressions, even if it's on a subconscious level, we must also live with the judgements of others.
If I go to a job interview in grubby clothes, they'll think I am lazy. If I don't make eye contact they won't trust me. A marijuana leaf on a T shirt, will persuade onlookers I have at least a passing interest in smoking pot. How often is the first point of contact with a company a single individual? Their manner and appearance, may either cause customers to walk out the door or alternatively attract business.
We represent our employers at work, and so for them to set a dress standard is quite OK.

Here are some articles about the recent bondage fashion trends, it's interesting to read what Karl Lagerfeld (top designer for Chanel) has to say about the importance of believing in what you wear, in the Harper's piece.


http://www.harpersbazaar.com/magazine/f ... apy-0309-3

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... aning.html

That's my point, Hunter.