Business History Books » Business Plans » Bodymod on Workplace
Bodymod on Workplace
Question:
> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> > <html>
don’t post in html. j
Response:
> Sorry, checked by accident. > Were you able to see my post though?
yep. j
Response:
Sorry, checked by accident. Were you able to see my post though? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> > <html> > don’t post in html. > j
Response:
> <p>So we have our roles in society to play as good as we can.
I disagree. I think it is our DUTY to help others redefine the perceptions they have of us. There was a time when a person with dark skin would not be hired on as management (not too long ago, and in some areas, STILL) because there was a PERCEPTION that there were areas they shouldn’t be working in. By your argument, people with dark skin should have covered their skin, or otherwise, in order to keep the perceptions whole. But that is not in fact what happened. I think that we have the right to be publicly modified. We have the right to be on wall street with septum rings and purple hair. We have the right to show our intelligence and savvy and all sorts of other things, and to expect to be judged based on them. We have the right to fight for the changing of perceptions. Lisa Before you buy.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> <p>Visible bodymods might be more accepted in the computer industry whereas > it is unacceptable in the financial industry. Tattooed myself with one > large piece that is the first of a Japanese bodysuit and a total of six > other on my other arm, I would never hire someone to work as one of my > brokers here on Wall Street who is wearing facial piercings and tattoos > visible beyond tie and suit. > <p>Hypocritical? I don’t think so, I have to run a business that is conservative > in its nature and deals with customers who often grew up in a time when > tattoos where not as mainstream as today. Hence, it would reflect negatively > on us and our reputation and we might loose the trust and confidence of > large customers. This risk is unbearable for us.
Even in the computer industry, there are various levels of acceptance of visible mods. My only visible mods are my 8 ga lobes and a 14 ga cart rim. I am currently contracted to a major international pharmaceutical company. I have had some pretty odd looks, but no one has really ever bothered me about it. Now if I were to do what I _really_ want to do, and get both sides of my head tattooed, the shit would hit the fan, and I’d probably be out of a job. The receptionist at my home office has a visible tattoo under her right ear. I was very supportive of her when she got it. She took a risk with it, and has so far gotten no flak for it. I never let visible mods color my perception of a person’s professional capability, but then again, I’m not part of the generation that you mention. I believe that as the younger generations mature, and begin to exert sway over society, that those prejudices will fade. — Vargr www.vargr.org Before you buy.
Response:
> I disagree. I think it is our DUTY to help others redefine the > perceptions they have of us.
It was our choice to be moded, a person with dark skin does not have that choice. > There was a time when a person with dark skin would not be hired on as > management (not too long ago, and in some areas, STILL) because there > was a PERCEPTION that there were areas they shouldn’t be working in.
There are areas that someone with visible piercing should not work. Not because of what they look like, but because it could be a safety hazard. Like in a manufacturing plant, where rings,BB etc could get caught on machinery. If people want these piercings, they don’t want to chance loosing them by getting caught on something at work. The employer doesn’t and should not have to take the risk of worker’s comp claims because someone has a piercing. That is why there are dress codes. As to a person with dark skin, if that person can and/or has proven ability to be a manager, then they should be protected against discrimination. > By your argument, people with dark skin should have covered their skin, > or otherwise, in order to keep the perceptions whole. But that is not > in fact what happened.
No they shouldn’t keep their skin covered; they did not choose their skin color. A person with purple hair on the other hand made that choice. Some people think it is silly, some think that it is dumb, some think that it is cool, and some don’t really care. But in a corporate atmosphere, image is everything to make a sell, get a contract or whatever. It is the first impression that keeps a potential client interested. Then comes intelligence. Sorry its not the other way around. But no one ever said life was fair. > I think that we have the right to be publicly modified. We have the > right to be on wall street with septum rings and purple hair. We have > the right to show our intelligence and savvy and all sorts of other > things, and to expect to be judged based on them.
We do have the right to be publicly modified, As do employers have the right to keep their image the way they want it. I work in a Nuclear facility, body modifications are fine, so long as they were in place before you started working there, or you take personal time off to have them and heal them. The reason for this. A fresh/unhealed piercing is an open wound. A fresh tatoo is an open wound. People who work here are subjected to radioactive waste, pure plutonium, and several other hazordous materials. Having even a scratch prevents you from working in the contaminated areas, because it is easier to become contaminated. A fresh/unhealed piercing prevents you from doing your job, and thats what your there for. I had to take a 6 month leave of absence to have my piercing done, If it isn’t healed by then I will have to extend my leave. But it was my choice, not theirs. Why should they have to cater to me because I wanted to poke a hole in my body somewhere. > We have the right to fight for the changing of perceptions.
Yes, we have a right to fight for changing perceptions, but it is not a fight that we are likely to win. It is a fight that will likely cause us more grief than it is worth. Not to mention driving a wedge between ourselves. This has started a fight amoung people who are moded, all because of percetions. k
Response:
> There are areas that someone with visible piercing should not work. Not > because of what they look like, but because it could be a safety
hazard. [...] The employer > doesn’t and should not have to take the risk of worker’s comp claims > because someone has a piercing. That is why there are dress codes.
absolutely, I agree. However, that’s why, in those specific instances, there are dress codes and there are reasons to not have visible piercings. BUT. Dress codes for wall street make no sense. Not REALLY. I mean, think about it. Why is our perception of people based on appearance? THAT’S what I think is so silly. What you’re talking about is common sense and I agree with it fully. > As to a person with dark skin, if that person can and/or has proven > ability to be a manager, then they should be protected against > discrimination.
And if a modded person can and/or has proven ability to be a manager, they they should be protected against discrimination as well. > No they shouldn’t keep their skin covered; they did not choose their > skin color. A person with purple hair on the other hand made that > choice. Some people think it is silly, some think that it is dumb, some > think that it is cool, and some don’t really care. But in a corporate > atmosphere, image is everything to make a sell, get a contract or > whatever. It is the first impression that keeps a potential client > interested. Then comes intelligence. Sorry its not the other way around. > But no one ever said life was fair.
I’m not talking about life being fair. I’m talking about the fact that it stings to see people say that "image is everything to make a sell" and to not even second guess that, wonder why it is, or see that it needs to change and we’re the ones to do it. It’s about being asleep instead of being awake to the injustices that occur every day, to normal people. When a modded person says that the image of a modded person is "not corporate" or "not appropriate" it’s almost as if that person doesn’t REALLY believe that their mods are beautiful. Or that they believe that they became second class citizens when they started to mod. Why push yourself down on behalf of others? Why NOT stand up and shout and work towards acceptance of people that REALLY isn’t based on appearance? Chosen differences are just as valid as differences from birth. > We do have the right to be publicly modified, As do employers have the > right to keep their image the way they want it.
I disagree. If you take that out of context, again, that’s an argument that was used to keep differently skinned people out of some industries. Or an argument to keep heavier women out of flight attendent jobs. Employers have the right to expect their product to be top quality, and to expect you to work very hard. They do not have the right to define what you look like. > I work in a Nuclear facility, body modifications are fine, so long as > they were in place before you started working there, or you take > personal time off to have them and heal them. [...]Why should they >have to cater to me because I wanted to poke a hole in > my body somewhere.
Ah, but again, that’s not what I’m talking about. When we’re talking about reasons of health, of safety, it makes sense. It’s the same reason why I would never try to fight for the position of firewoman. I’m, personally, not strong enough. Just as there are some women who are, and some men who aren’t. What you originally said, that mods are fine there, is the way it should be everywhere — they’re fine, just that for these reasons you have to get them and heal them on your own time. or — they’re fine, except [this list of piercings] put you at risk, safety wise. or whatever. > Yes, we have a right to fight for changing perceptions, but it is not a > fight that we are likely to win. It is a fight that will likely cause us > more grief than it is worth. Not to mention driving a wedge between > ourselves. This has started a fight amoung people who are moded, all > because of percetions.
I believe that breaking through oppression is worth everything. And it is a fight, that, if fought, will eventually be won. And it is something that is worth much grief, many times over. That’s why I fight it, and that’s why those I know fight it. We live with so much oppression daily, why oppress ourselves? And why, oh why, wouldn’t we try to get rid of that oppression? There are not valid ways to oppress someone. There are not valid reasons to be oppressed. There are only valid reasons to stand up and be counted, and valid reasons to fight. </rant> Lisa Before you buy.
Response:
Well Lisa: I think to might see it too narrow and you obviously do not run a business that requires a certain image in order to make a successful sale. The sale is what keeps my business running, provides the broker with income for him/her and eventually the family. I can’t sit in our dealing room 30 people, all with Moko and facial piercings and dealing with customers. Although I must admit that this is a tempting sight… and would be pretty cool. I would be pretty soon out of business and my job is to make and manage money, it is not public relation for the political cause of changing public perception of the body modified. I was making the point regarding PROFESSIONAL perception (not prejudice!), and that is without a doubt not something that have to be changed. I just don’t believe that if a construction worker does not wear the "marks" of someone who is on a regular basis using a hammer, or is digging the dirt is very effective. This is not to say that I wouldn’t give someone in a suit the chance, but there is a certain perception that helps to prequalify the professional capability of a person… Would you ask an overweight alcoholic for advise on health? You would maybe… I wouldn’t. Would you go to get your fingernails done by a filthy person with dirt under the fingernails, rough hands, and broken fingernails in a very bad condition? This person is in my opinion not very credible as well… Would you listen to a person giving you tips on how your relationship with your partner can last forever and that person is for years changing partners and is not capable to hold a relationship longer than a few weeks? I wouldn’t listen to that person. This selection is of course more aimed to the private level, however our perceptions helping us to prequalify people and avoid to waist too much time. With all that, I think that you are a little bit too general when you bring the race issue in. kmdirks is correct when he states that "It was our choice to be moded, a person with dark skin does not have that choice." I am probably the last one you should come with the race issue. I am referring to voluntary body modification, not to unalterable ethnicity. BTW, my fiance is black and my business partners are besides caucasian, from Malaysia, Japan and South-America. I have all ethnic groups represented in my company and that is also our philosophy. I am not sure whether I have made myself clear on that point. And yes, you have the right to be on Wall Street with Septum Piercings and purple hair and I have the right to make a decision whether I let you have contact with clients or you are in the mail room, hidden away from direct customer contact. It’s about Freedom of Choice. If I am getting tattooed, I have to know what the consequences are and that way I am conscious about it. I am tattooed, I love it, I am proud of it and I will get more work done and it is a part of who I am, but I am also aware of the limitations and have to deal with it. For instance, I would be unable to go to a public bath in Japan with business associates over there, because I would definetly not get a deal done. Ergo, I have to adapt and look for different solution on how to conduct business over there. E.g. doing business only with a Yakuza owned and managed bank *Grin*. Greetings Chaoswolf – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> <p>So we have our roles in society to play as good as we can. > I disagree. I think it is our DUTY to help others redefine the > perceptions they have of us. > There was a time when a person with dark skin would not be hired on as > management (not too long ago, and in some areas, STILL) because there > was a PERCEPTION that there were areas they shouldn’t be working in. > By your argument, people with dark skin should have covered their skin, > or otherwise, in order to keep the perceptions whole. But that is not > in fact what happened. > I think that we have the right to be publicly modified. We have the > right to be on wall street with septum rings and purple hair. We have > the right to show our intelligence and savvy and all sorts of other > things, and to expect to be judged based on them. > We have the right to fight for the changing of perceptions. > Lisa > Before you buy.
Response:
You are so welcome, you have no idea… Have a good one. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > You said that much better than I did. thanks > k
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Well Lisa: > I think to might see it too narrow and you obviously do not run a business > that requires a certain image in order to make a successful sale. The sale > is what keeps my business running, provides the broker with income for > him/her and eventually the family. I can’t sit in our dealing room 30 > people, all with Moko and facial piercings and dealing with customers. > Although I must admit that this is a tempting sight… and would be pretty > cool. I would be pretty soon out of business and my job is to make and > manage money, it is not public relation for the political cause of changing > public perception of the body modified. > I was making the point regarding PROFESSIONAL perception (not prejudice!), > and that is without a doubt not something that have to be changed. I just > don’t believe that if a construction worker does not wear the "marks" of > someone who is on a regular basis using a hammer, or is digging the dirt is > very effective. This is not to say that I wouldn’t give someone in a suit > the chance, but there is a certain perception that helps to prequalify the > professional capability of a person… > Would you ask an overweight alcoholic for advise on health? You would > maybe… I wouldn’t. > Would you go to get your fingernails done by a filthy person with dirt > under the fingernails, rough hands, and broken fingernails in a very bad > condition? This person is in my opinion not very credible as well… > Would you listen to a person giving you tips on how your relationship with > your partner can last forever and that person is for years changing > partners and is not capable to hold a relationship longer than a few weeks? > I wouldn’t listen to that person. > This selection is of course more aimed to the private level, however our > perceptions helping us to prequalify people and avoid to waist too much > time. > With all that, I think that you are a little bit too general when you bring > the race issue in. kmdirks is correct when he states that "It was our > choice to be moded, a person with dark skin does not have that choice." > I am probably the last one you should come with the race issue. I am > referring to voluntary body modification, not to unalterable ethnicity. > BTW, my fiance is black and my business partners are besides caucasian, > from Malaysia, Japan and South-America. I have all ethnic groups > represented in my company and that is also our philosophy. > I am not sure whether I have made myself clear on that point. > And yes, you have the right to be on Wall Street with Septum Piercings and > purple hair and I have the right to make a decision whether I let you have > contact with clients or you are in the mail room, hidden away from direct > customer contact. > It’s about Freedom of Choice. If I am getting tattooed, I have to know what > the consequences are and that way I am conscious about it. I am tattooed, I > love it, I am proud of it and I will get more work done and it is a part of > who I am, but I am also aware of the limitations and have to deal with it. > For instance, I would be unable to go to a public bath in Japan with > business associates over there, because I would definetly not get a deal > done. Ergo, I have to adapt and look for different solution on how to > conduct business over there. E.g. doing business only with a Yakuza owned > and managed bank *Grin*. > Greetings > Chaoswolf
You said that much better than I did. thanks k
Response:
> I think to might see it too narrow and you obviously do not run a business > that requires a certain image in order to make a successful sale.
Actually, both my parents own their own businesses. I was helping out around the stores from their inception, until I went away to school. Although I may not PERSONALLY own my own business, I have more than enough experience to give me a very clear understanding of sale=money=food. Your assumption is an example of misconceptions based on perceptions. > I was making the point regarding PROFESSIONAL perception (not prejudice!), > and that is without a doubt not something that have to be changed.
It’s prejudice just like any other prejudice. It’s oppression, just like any other oppression. Professional perceptions are in place through closed mindedness. NOT through necessity. The examples that you gave may in fact be common sense, HOWEVER, although obesity and alcoholism do in fact have something to do with the health profession, body mods have nothing to do with — well — virtually any profession except body modification. Although uncleanliness may show an inability to do my fingernails correctly, body modifications do not show an inability to handle money. Or to program. Or to cook. Etc. > With all that, I think that you are a little bit too general when you bring > the race issue in. kmdirks is correct when he states that "It was our > choice to be moded, a person with dark skin does not have that
choice." And I’ll say it again. Just because you chose to look a certain way does not give others the right to oppress you. I mentioned the race issue on purpose, although it was general, to show how the oppression is similar. > BTW, my fiance is black and my business partners are besides caucasian, > from Malaysia, Japan and South-America. I have all ethnic groups > represented in my company and that is also our philosophy.
yeah, and? you might as well pipe up and say "and one of my friends is gay" I have never implied that you or any other person writing within this thread is racist. I am merely saying that I do not understand why people within a minority (body modded people) are not only ALLOWING themselves to be oppressed for their appearance, but are DOING IT THEMSELVES. > It’s about Freedom of Choice. If I am getting tattooed, I have to know what > the consequences are and that way I am conscious about it. I am tattooed, I > love it, I am proud of it and I will get more work done and it is a part of > who I am, but I am also aware of the limitations and have to deal
with it. I agree that knowing what the limitations are NOW is important, but just because the limitations are a certain way now doesn’t mean you have to allow them to perpetuate. Or perpetuate them yourself. Lisa Before you buy.
Response:
<<And I’ll say it again. Just because you chose to look a certain way does not give others the right to oppress you.>> Merriam-Webster defines "oppress" as "to crush or burden by abuse of power or authority." I don’t see how Employer A deciding not to employ Pierced-Johnny because it is detrimental to his business constitutes oppression. Pierced-Johnny can take out his piercings, Pierced-Johnny can find another job, Pierced-Johnny can marry a wealthy dowager and live off her bank accounts. Pierced-Johnny has options. If Employer A called up every other business in town and said, "Don’t hire Pierced-Johnny, he’s a perforated freak!", I can see how that would be oppression of the Pierced Class. So using the "choosing to look a certain way," employers couldn’t require employees to wear uniforms then, could they? Or to have any sort of a dress code? I’ll put it this way — sure, my lawyer can wear hot pants and mesh tank-tops all he wants on his own time, but if he’s defending me in a murder case, he damn well be wearing a nice suit. I bet most people would agree with me on that one. When it’s your ass on the line, sometimes noble principles fall to the wayside. :-) <<I mentioned the race issue on purpose, although it was general, to show how the oppression is similar.>> But people don’t choose their race. They do choose to be modified (you say yourself, it’s "choosing to look a certain way"). I think that’s a fairly relevant difference. <<I agree that knowing what the limitations are NOW is important, but just because the limitations are a certain way now doesn’t mean you have to allow them to perpetuate. Or perpetuate them yourself.>> Well put. I think we all can agree on that, it’s that we differ on just how to stop the perpetuation. Some think it’s by legal force, others think by "working from the inside," others think discreetly being modded and competent is the way to go. -Meghan — http://www.bmeworld.com/meghan "My advice to women now is to shout, ‘I’m flat as a pancake!’ Say it loud; say it proud!" — Betsey Johnson
Response:
>Visible bodymods might be more accepted in the computer industry >whereas it is unacceptable in the financial industry.
Um….not always, I’m afraid. I handle pension plans of all sorts for other companies—-my job includes dealing with financial folks such as brokers and CPAs as well as fund companies and my companies themselves…..and I also happen to have a wristband and a tattoo on the back of each hand. I also do an excellent job and have my M.S. I got my job based on my skills, and not my appearance. So having at least some highly visible mods is not necessarily the kiss of death—-and the more people that I deal with who see my work, the more people that revise their opinions of people with tattoos, the quality of work available, etc. And frankly, if you didn’t want to hire me as a broker based on the tattoos on my hands, I guarantee you that I wouldn’t want to work for you…..and that someone else would make quite a bit off me. Times are a’changin…… Anna L. Bunce Before you buy.
Response:
> I mentioned the race issue on purpose, although it was general, to show > how the oppression is similar.
You have got to be kidding. Because I am modded I am not allowed to ride in the front of the bus, drink out of the same water fountain, go to the same school, or vote with non modded people. And last week, I was chained up and forced into servitude by a non modded person. Oh wait, this is the wrong NG for that. <G> Yes, this was many years ago, but it happened, and it is not even CLOSE to being denied a job. What next, freedom riders for the piercing community? kristin pierced panther
Response:
Thanks for your input Anna: You have some pretty valid points and in the end it is a question of the individual. I also mean a pierced eyebrow, 10 earrings and a tat on the hand is not a big deal. I pictured actually more extreme visible mods on facial area etc. It is certainly one thing to have acceptance from a broker (who deals with the customer) or the CPA who deals with you, and getting acceptance from the 65 years old investor, comming to your office to give you $500k to open an account. Brokers are mostly very tolerant people, but I have a CPA working for me as a broker who was disturbed that one of my directors had shoulder length hair. This looked in his opinion quite unprofessional. How many of those brokers you are talking to (and I don’t mean phone-jokeys, broker with direct high-networth client contact) have visible bodymods? Probably not too many… but you know what, many of them might have tattoos or pierced nipples. How do I know? I am going to a gym directly here on Wall Street (New York Sports Club) and after the guys are pealing themselves out of their suits, you see lots of Tattoos. But all hidden under the suits… why do you think that is… not in every case because they are wimps! I always look at the person first before I hire, you have to be qualified or at least trainable. If you have your "own" style, its fine, but if it impedes the effectivness of my company… we’ve got to find a solution. My most important point is that if you are dealing with private customers, whose perception of you, makes or brakes the deal and the survival of your company depends on it… the best interest of the company has to depend on it. And I have to tell you that, if you don’t understand this point, it doesn’t matter what degree you hold, you are not long enough in retail sales of the financial services industry. I am doing sales like that since more than 15 years and always hired and trained brokers and learned that you have to see with the customers eyes and understand what the customer expects from you and then you deliver. The other way around will lead to a dead end because the competition is way too big. Take care Chaoswolf – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Visible bodymods might be more accepted in the computer industry >whereas it is unacceptable in the financial industry. > Um….not always, I’m afraid. I handle pension plans of all sorts for > other companies—-my job includes dealing with financial folks such as > brokers and CPAs as well as fund companies and my companies > themselves…..and I also happen to have a wristband and a tattoo on the > back of each hand. I also do an excellent job and have my M.S. I > got my job based on my skills, and not my appearance. So having at > least some highly visible mods is not necessarily the kiss of > death—-and the more people that I deal with who see my work, the more > people that revise their opinions of people with tattoos, the quality of > work available, etc. And frankly, if you didn’t want to hire me as a > broker based on the tattoos on my hands, I guarantee you that I wouldn’t > want to work for you…..and that someone else would make quite a bit > off me. Times are a’changin…… > Anna L. Bunce > Before you buy.
Response:
There is another point regarding appearance and that relates to dress code. In Florida (most likely California as well) brokerage firms allow their brokers to come to work in Hawai shirts and shorts and sandals. It is accepted down there because of the hot climate. Up here in New York, this is unthinkable although dress code relaxes here but not to the extend as in Florida. You are meeting many brokers, huh? What do you think how many brokers I see here in the financial district. In years, I did not see one broker with visible tattoos beyond the suitline… (as I stated in my earlier post: under the suit you’ll find often bodymods in one form or the other.) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Um….not always, I’m afraid. I handle pension plans of all sorts for > other companies—-my job includes dealing with financial folks such as > brokers and CPAs as well as fund companies and my companies > themselves….. > Anna L. Bunce > Before you buy.
Response:
Meghan cyberscribed: >I’ll put it this way — sure, my lawyer can wear hot pants and mesh >tank-tops all he wants on his own time, but if he’s defending me in a >murder case, he damn well be wearing a nice suit. I bet most people >would agree with me on that one. When it’s your ass on the line, >sometimes noble principles fall to the wayside. :-)
I definetly agree with this one, but I think that there are some employers that could afford to let it slide, but don’t. Blockbuster wouldn’t hire me solely due to my piercings, and Starbucks makes me cover my eyebrow rings with a band-aid and wear a tongue retainer. The *rule book* allows two earrings per ear so the industrial gets to stay 
Also, I wasn’t hired to work at a cooking school where I wouldn’t even be working with people, I’d just be washing dishes, cleaning, etc., because of my piercings. Now, I didn’t pout and try to victimize myself (I just got a different job), but I still feel that these circumstances were a little ridiculous. I really don’t think that visible piercings are a detriment to an employer in such an inane minimum-wage job. If I got the high-paying computer job of my dreams, hell, I’d shave my head if they needed. But for a shitty after-school job, it shouldn’t be such an issue. — "…and I mean that with all due respect, bitchass" –LadyJ, rec.arts.bodyart http://www.bmeworld.com/erica (to email me, remove "munist" from my mailto)
Response:
Hey Anna, where you bean Garbonzo? — G