Parents tattoo kids....

[Jenny_in_Chico]

Wow, this thread has caught fire like a bad case of the clap.

I think I was the first person to say that giving the kids hand tattoos was dooming them to a life at minimum wage jobs. I stand by that statement. Whether we like it or not, mainstream society has unwritten rules about what you "can" and "can't" do if you want to be taken seriously. I'm not anti-tattoo, for the record, I think that guys with tattoos are hot. I've dated guys with tattoos on their faces, necks, hands and inside lower lips. So I'm pretty open to innovative ways of decorating one's body with ink. But guess what? I suspect that all of those guys are constrained with respect to their career choices. It isn't necessarily kind or fair, but that is the way of the world.

With respect to raising kids: let's separate "government" from "society" in this discussion. As a civilized society, we all agree that we have a responsibility toward protecting the physical and mental well-being of children...all children, nt just our own. That means that I personally have a responsibility toward the kids living down the street. If their parents are abusing them, it is my duty as a member of society to do something about it. "Government" is the official arm of society, and it is necessary because we no longer live in tiny tribes and can't take our personal gripes to a single person for a solution. We imbue the government with certain powers, so that the rules we all agree to live by can be administered fairly. So we allow the government to step in and interfere in cases where we as a society agree that it is desirable. In essence, we create a middleman between individual members of society and society as a whole. So instead of me walking down the street and punching someone in the melon for abusing their children, I call Child Protective Services and report the abuse. We as a society have agreed that children are people with limited power and in a unique state of vulnerability, and although parents should be allowed to exercise a large amount of freedom in how they are raised, they aren't allowed to do everything they want. In this case, irrespective of the "harm" that the kids may experience years down the road from having hand tattoos, it cannot be denied that the parents stabbed them with a needle multiple times. That is abuse by anyone's definition.

 

[Carol]

Ok, so let me ask this:

You run a Successful... i dunno... accounting firm. You lose an employee for whatever reason, and need someone fast. Your local headhunter says "Good news! We have a guy, just came back on the market, he has 20 years experience, some of his clients are fortune 500 companies and he draws more and more in everyday because his knowledge of tax laws is exemplary... he got bored with his last company and came to me looking for somthing new"

He sounds great, but walks in to your office to interview and has a slew of earrings and two full tattoo sleeves and they bleed over onto his hands. Do you do the foolish thing and turn him down?

This implies that the body mods are an unpleasant surprise at arrival time. In that case, I'd likely sack the headhunter for not knowing the industry or my company's needs.

 

[MJS]

Wow, this thread has caught fire like a bad case of the clap.

I think I was the first person to say that giving the kids hand tattoos was dooming them to a life at minimum wage jobs. I stand by that statement. Whether we like it or not, mainstream society has unwritten rules about what you "can" and "can't" do if you want to be taken seriously. I'm not anti-tattoo, for the record, I think that guys with tattoos are hot. I've dated guys with tattoos on their faces, necks, hands and inside lower lips. So I'm pretty open to innovative ways of decorating one's body with ink. But guess what? I suspect that all of those guys are constrained with respect to their career choices. It isn't necessarily kind or fair, but that is the way of the world.

With respect to raising kids: let's separate "government" from "society" in this discussion. As a civilized society, we all agree that we have a responsibility toward protecting the physical and mental well-being of children...all children, nt just our own. That means that I personally have a responsibility toward the kids living down the street. If their parents are abusing them, it is my duty as a member of society to do something about it. "Government" is the official arm of society, and it is necessary because we no longer live in tiny tribes and can't take our personal gripes to a single person for a solution. We imbue the government with certain powers, so that the rules we all agree to live by can be administered fairly. So we allow the government to step in and interfere in cases where we as a society agree that it is desirable. In essence, we create a middleman between individual members of society and society as a whole. So instead of me walking down the street and punching someone in the melon for abusing their children, I call Child Protective Services and report the abuse. We as a society have agreed that children are people with limited power and in a unique state of vulnerability, and although parents should be allowed to exercise a large amount of freedom in how they are raised, they aren't allowed to do everything they want. In this case, irrespective of the "harm" that the kids may experience years down the road from having hand tattoos, it cannot be denied that the parents stabbed them with a needle multiple times. That is abuse by anyone's definition.

Nice post. Likewise, again, I'm not anti tat either. My sister has a few, as well as other male and female friends of mine. It was mentioned earlier, about ear piercing and belly piercing. IMO, those 2 things, compared to a few tats, tastefully done, compared to a walking inkman, are all very different things.

Fact of the matter is, is that society will view you for what they see. Right or wrong, be it as it may, it happens.

 

[Twin Fist]

So, am I safe to assume that as long as the tats dont physically harm the kid, then its ok in your eyes?

no, i think it is stupid, but i dont think it ought to be illegal.

stupid aint illegal

 

[Twin Fist]

I think I was the first person to say that giving the kids hand tattoos was dooming them to a life at minimum wage jobs. I stand by that statement.

and you would be wrong

I know a LOT of welders that have hand tats.

they make more than YOU, ME and both of us combined, same with mechanics i know. Hell I know a couple bikers that are COVERED with tats, and run thier own custom cycle shop, they cleared almost 500K EACH last year in a crappy economy

you MIGHT have a point in the suit world, but that is a small, SMALL portion of the world.

there is more of us than there are suits in the world

 

[MJS]

and you dont know what you are talking about.

I know a LOT of welders that have hand tats.

they make more than YOU, ME and both of us combined, same with mechanics i know. Hell I know a couple bikers that are COVERED with tats, and run thier own custom cycle shop, they cleared almost 500K EACH last year in a crappy economy

you MIGHT have a point in the suit world, but that is a small, SMALL portion of the world.

there is more of us than there are of you

See, you just said the same thing that I, and a few others did, when we spoke of jobs. Depending on the job, the tats may very well be accepted. If the person wishes to be a cycle shop owner, mechanic, welder, etc., compared to a doc., lawyer, or 'white collar' worker, then yes, that look will probably be more accepted. But again, it all goes back to the person being limited to those areas. Can we assume that facial tats, piercings, etc. will be accepted in the white collar world?

On another note...I did a quick google search on the payscale of welders. The pay is there, but I noticed that it varied, depending on what type of welder you are, where you work, etc.

 

[Twin Fist]

most of the welders I know are oilfield guys, they BANK

 

[Ken Morgan]

I would bet that their parents didn't tattoo them when they were kids though. They had the work done to themselves when they were older.

 

[Twin Fist]

thats irellevant, the assertion was that hand tats force someone to a life of minimum wage jobs, which has been proven to be not true

 

[Cryozombie]

This implies that the body mods are an unpleasant surprise at arrival time. In that case, I'd likely sack the headhunter for not knowing the industry or my company's needs.

Really? So you would let your personal prejudice cost your company major clients and big deals, AND turn away the recruiter that found that source, and let both of them work for your competition?

Carol, I like you, but that's just stupid, and LOUSY business sense.

 

[Cryozombie]

thats irellevant, the assertion was that hand tats force someone to a life of minimum wage jobs, which has been proven to be not true

True. I have tattoos on my arms and hand, and often display them at work. I don't work a minimum wage job (although it feels that way sometimes).

 

[MJS]

I would bet that their parents didn't tattoo them when they were kids though. They had the work done to themselves when they were older.

thats irellevant, the assertion was that hand tats force someone to a life of minimum wage jobs, which has been proven to be not true

Actually, I think Kens point is valid, as we are discussing at least 2 topics in this one thread. The first is the OP, which is parents who tattoo kids. The second being whether or not tats have an effect on the type of job that you'll get.

While there may be jobs out there that aren't min. wage, I still maintain the notion that the person with a ton of tats, will be limited as to what they can do. What if the person doesnt want to be a mechanic, cycle shop owner or welder? Then what? Will it be easy for them to get a job, in a corporate setting, where excessive or visable tats is frowned upon?

This is why, once again, I'll say...I'm not against tattoos, however, anyone who takes stuff like that on, needs to seriously think about it. Is it something they really want, something they really want to live with, etc.? If the person can't be 100% sure this is something they want, that it wont effect them job wise, down the road, then why do it?

 

[MJS]

Really? So you would let your personal prejudice cost your company major clients and big deals, AND turn away the recruiter that found that source, and let both of them work for your competition?

Carol, I like you, but that's just stupid, and LOUSY business sense.

Would you feel the same way, if you, as the person doing the hiring or you as the headhunter, knew that the way the person looked, would not be accepted by the company?

 

[MJS]

True. I have tattoos on my arms and hand, and often display them at work. I don't work a minimum wage job (although it feels that way sometimes).

Out of curiosity and for the sake of the thread, what do you do for work?

 

[Cryozombie]

What if the person doesnt want to be a mechanic, cycle shop owner or welder? Then what? Will it be easy for them to get a job, in a corporate setting, where excessive or visable tats is frowned upon?

Then they get a job in I.T., Programming, Televison, Broadcasting, Film, Phone Sales, Print News Reporting, Writing, Art, Fabrication, Gunsmithing, Should I continue?

Not every decent job is at a big corporation.

 

[Cryozombie]

Out of curiosity and for the sake of the thread, what do you do for work?

I.T. in a Hospital

Would you feel the same way, if you, as the person doing the hiring or you as the headhunter, knew that the way the person looked, would not be accepted by the company?

Assuming I knew... but knew they were on top of their game, I would present them anyhow, and let the employer know. If I did not know and I presented them and the employer balked, I would remind them results count for more, and if they still said no, Id sell the person to their competition.

 

[Carol]

Really? So you would let your personal prejudice cost your company major clients and big deals, AND turn away the recruiter that found that source, and let both of them work for your competition?

Carol, I like you, but that's just stupid, and LOUSY business sense.

Point out to where my reasons are based in personal prejudice?

 

[Cryozombie]

Point out to where my reasons are based in personal prejudice?

Hypothetically, since we are talking an accountant who can bring in major players in the business world and you said that if their appearance was an unpleasant surprise you would fire the headhunter for not knowing the buisness' needs... when the need for someone Physically Appealing should come behind someone who can make the company *** loads of money... therefore it sounds to me as if you are putting personal prejudice ahead of what is best for the company.

 

[MJS]

Then they get a job in I.T., Programming, Televison, Broadcasting, Film, Phone Sales, Print News Reporting, Writing, Art, Fabrication, Gunsmithing, Should I continue?

Not every decent job is at a big corporation.

I agree. Of course, this is all contingent on whether or not that look is acceptable at that company.

I.T. in a Hospital

Cool. So I'm assuming your boss, the hospital, have no issues with your tats?

Assuming I knew... but knew they were on top of their game, I would present them anyhow, and let the employer know. If I did not know and I presented them and the employer balked, I would remind them results count for more, and if they still said no, Id sell the person to their competition.

Ok.

One more question for you. Isnt the idea of the headhunter, to get something that the person using them, wants? I mean, if I wanted to buy a new car, I'm relying on the salesman, to get me the vehicle that meets my needs. If I said that I didn't want a blue car and I wanted it to be an automatic, and he tried to sell me a blue standard, telling me that that car is just as good....

See where I'm going with this?

 

[Cryozombie]

Thats a slightly different scenario, but I see where you are coming from. Lets put it in perspective from a reverse angle tho.

One of my duties back when I was working for Hot Topic was management recruiting and training for stores all over the U.S., in addition to recruiting and hiring sales staff for my store. Of course, being the type of store that they are (and especially at the time I worked there when the store's focus was still heavily goth and not so pop-trendy) they WANTED people who worked there to have a "look" that included piercings, tattoos, dyed hair, and an overall gothy/punky/rivethead look to them. However, when recruiting, knowing that yes, the look sold the atmosphere and generally made the managers and employees familiar with and more able to sell the products than a "normal" person... It never stopped me from recruiting in stores like Abercrombie, Journeys, Franks, or any of those places... because management and sales skills were the truly important part of that job. I doubt I would have been as successful if I had stuck to finding people with "the look". Know what I mean?

Sometimes you have just know that what you think appearance-wise isn't the best thing for your business.

Or: How well would an undercover vice cop do with a spotless uniform and regulation cop haircut?

And:

Cool. So I'm assuming your boss, the hospital, have no issues with your tats?

That is correct. I also push the limits of the dress code on most days, and have even sat in on meetings with the CEO and VP of operations for the Hospital, as well as done work in their office in loud, cartoony button down shirts and black jeans (denim of any color is supposed to be against the dress code) and they don't seem to care. I think its probably about the quality of my work.