Body Modifications Still Hinder IT Professionals? 1461
thedeletekey writes "The Detroit News recently ran an article about body modifications in the workplace. This got me thinking; do body modifications such as tattoos and piercings still hinder IT professionals in the workplace? Or is this a thing of the past, as these types of personal changes have become more common in recent years. In my experience, I've found both stringent dress codes requiring business casual attire, and no visible body modifications, to no dress code at all. What has the rest of the IT world found to be common?"
No biggie (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ummm...this is 2005. (Score:0, Informative)
Re:Ummm...this is 2005. (Score:0, Informative)
Re:tattoos (Score:5, Informative)
The military does require that its members be capable of presenting a professional apperance. Tats, while the traditional mark of someone about to kick your butt, are not allowed on skin that is visible while wearing a long-sleeved dress uniform. Peircings are limited to women (1 pair, in the ears. Conservative single stud or single pearl. No hoops or danglies), or off duty and far off post.
--Cam
Re:Ummm...this is 2005. (Score:4, Informative)
Military (Score:2, Informative)
You still have a boss, or if you prefer, a chain of command. While some tattoos will never be acceptable, e.g. those that may suggest racist affiliations, you must remember that those who outrank you can make or break your career, and can make your life miserable. Further, you may find a wall to a higher level security clearance, and to opportunities. I had a potentially identifying mark (not a tattoo) burned off, just in case. I can say from experience that almost any tattoo will create prejudice against the wearer, at least in the military.
KOA
Anchorage, Alaska Will Host National Policy Meeting on Technology [blogspot.com]
easier in other professions (Score:3, Informative)
H.
Re:No biggie (Score:1, Informative)
Geriatric myopia (Score:3, Informative)
You are suffering from geriatric myopia, (ie: it IS because you are getting older). Kids today are just as "mature" as when you were amoungst them. Since you have mentioned this observation came from some acedemic friends, is it possible you don't know any kids personally?
When I was 18 I told a prospective employer at a petrol station "no thanks" because he wanted to me to cut my hair and loose my dope leaf earing. Today I have short hair, (actually a bald spot with salt-n-pepper trim), I sit next to a 50-ish man with a receding hairline, neat ponnytail and a gold sleeper, go figure?
The only reason to follow a dress code and look neat at an interview is to show respect to your employer by "playing the part". In other words you are trying to "fit in" by looking like they do in an effort get/keep a job. You would not dress up in an expensive suit to get a labouring job since the employer would probably think you don't want to get your hands dirty.
Like it or not most of the "grown-ups" on the planet are not "mature" enough to overcome thier primative fear and loathing of people who look "different" and will equate the "difference" to immaturity, idiocy, disrespect, incompetence, etc, so that they themselves can feel superior (or at least normal). Ask yourself, if the situation were reversed and all your bosses and rivals had a corporate tattoo on thier forehead, would you do it?
Disclaimer: I am a 46yo proffesional and have two grown kids (20 & 25). Speaking of maturity, have you been through your "mid life crisis" yet, I have and it was just as much fun and heartache as my "teenage crisis".
BTW: I agree wholeheartedly with part of the quote from the GP: "Stand out of the crowd by what you do, not what you look like." - The probability of that realisation occuring to a particular person increases with age but it can and does occur to people at any age above puberty. Having said that it does not automatically follow that the GP is "mature", it just means they have learnt one particular lesson. There are good reasons to have dress codes (eg: friend and foe situations, group identity) but there are also good reasons for dressing "wierd", eg: to draw attention towards/away from something/someone, unmasks zenophobes, diagonse geriatric myopia...
Re:The new repressed minority: Christians (Score:2, Informative)
Now after reading stuff like this: http://www.reandev.com/taliban/ [reandev.com] i feel i'm better off living in Israel.
Re:No biggie (Score:5, Informative)
I think you illustrate my point pretty well.
Levitical law prohibits tattoos and 'cutting your body for the dead' right where it prohibits planting two kinds of seed in a field and cutting off the edges of your beard.
Moving onward to actual Christianity, the subject of my post, body piercing and tattooing is not forbidden by the RC, the C of E, the Missouri Synod, the Calvinists, the Episcopalians, nor have I ever personally met a Christian who gives a damn (poor choice of words there perhaps).
Somewhere there are a few slightly wacky sects like the 7th Day Adventists who have a lot of weird Leviticus-inspired rules as well as regular Christian ones, and they might forbid piercing. You may wish to focus on them if that reinforces the opinions you already hold about Christianity, but they're not exactly central to the debate.
They are dwarfed, in fact, by the vast mass of atheist/agnostics like yourself who have strongly-held yet blurry beliefs about Christianity formed from a vague mishmash of web pages and angst.
Now, I'm glad you realize that 'most Christians don't bother with the fiddly bits' -- you've gotten further than the original poster. The next step would be to go and read some stuff about what Christians actually do believe -- both the Catholics and the mainstream Protestants (Lutheran etc) will have lots of fun facts for you about the supercession of the Levitical law.
I really don't want to deliver a generic 'learn something about it before talking!' smackdown here, but... well, let's just leave it hanging in the air