Man, it totally sucks that folks with body art are still forced to cover up, but like I tell a lot of people in my peer group, and discuss with people of my parents generation, we are the body art generation. In twenty years, there won't be a CEO, project manager or administrative/HR person un-ink'd. I wholeheartedly believe this, and the proof is in the fact that EVERY person I know has SOMETHING done somewhere.....granted not everyone in corporate america will be found sleev'd, however, I think there IS in fact a growing acceptance of this. Case in point, I have a half sleeve on my right arm, and a large art nouveau piece on my left arm, both pieces covering the outside of my arm, from my shoulders to my elbows. Anyway, I work in a kitchen and bath remodeling/design company and it is of no concern to the CEO's or the customers that I am tattoo'd. So, good luck to those of you who are still in places where you have to hide you tattoo's....

Hmm. Well, I've been working in newspapers and magazines for almost 20 years now and haven't ever covered up. In fact, when I went to my latest job interview, I didn't make any attempt to hide my knuckle tattoos either.

Now, I work in a fairly free-wheeling field, but I can attest that _ at least as it bears on sports _ my tattoos have probably helped get me closer to some athletes than my (also) grey-haired colleagues have been able to.

-jamie

I work in the nonprofit world and you would think there would be a level of freedom (particularly for those like myself in the "we never see donors" side of things). Unfortunately, this is not the case. I got a gift cert for a local tattoo shop for my b-day (I have piercings, but no tats yet) and I am stressing about where to put it. Perhaps it's because I have worked for large national hospitals and higher ed?

At some point employers have to acknowledge that times are changing and that their employees are too. I feel like a hypocrite every morning when I take out my jewelry, hence why I am looking for a new job.

I hope not, where's the fun in that? They'd stop being "SuicideGirls" and start being just plain "Girls."

I think a major issue is being overlooked here. I hate to be all serious and negative, but i don't truly believe "times are a changing" quite to the degree most of the people that have been commenting seem to think it is. I don't believe the discrimination we feel in the modified category has anything to do with being modified. The prejudice and discrimination are inherent in human beings. Let me explain.

There will still be a fair amount of discrimination at the work place even when more than half of the CEO's have tattoo's. There will still be discrimination in the work place when statistically 75+% of the CEO's have tattoos. Because the discrimination will be based on "degrees" rather than the mere presence of tattoos / piercings / brands / scars / etc.

there is a great amount of discrimination present amongst members of the modified community as is. For all of you out there with tattoos or piercings, have you not at some point thought someone else with them was a "freak"? that you just didnt understand the "degree" of which this person decided to modify their own body?

Fakir Mustafar, The Lizardman, Bear, Trigger, Stalking Cat, Paul Booth, even Mike Tyson or The Rock are more prominent figures in the modified community, and in the public eye. Tell me not a single one fo you has not at some point considered one of them a freak for even a second, or not understand WHY they would go as far as they did. These people went to a further degree than most of us, and most of us do not see what made them do what they did. So chances are your boss with a tramp stamp or an armband or a nose ring or his nipples pierced still wont understand why you have that entire sleeve or forehead tattoo, or huge septum bone very large stretched earlobes.

and of course there is the opposite effect. People who are more heavily modified thinking that dude with a taz tattoo or an eagle, or an arm band is not in the same category. If you don't think this happens, first of all try thinking really hard about your own opinions of others. Let me tell you, you see it really quick when you work in a tattoo shop. The artists a lot of the time will see the customers as mindless sheep following a trend. There are all kinds of inside jokes about different designs, and placements. As if the artists are truly enlightened and know what is cool and what is not, acceptable or subject to ridicule. as if the artist are better than the people we induct into the scene. I am guilty of this same thing, and i feel guilty for it, but it is in my (and all of our) nature.

Not to mention the prejudice and lack of tolerance between different studies of modification. If you have tattoos, you might not understand why people pierce their face. if you have piercings, you might not understand scarification (cutting), or branding, or tooth sharpening, tongue splitting, suspension, implants....so on and so forth.

So i agree, the world is changing and we are getting a lot more tolerance (and more "tolerable"). and by we, i mean the "modified community". i am proud to be a part of that community. I am what i would refer to as "moderately modified". i am not a dabbler, nor do i consider myself "heavily" modified. I do have many facial piercings and plenty of visible tattoos, and i have had to cover them / take them out for work many times and felt mistreated for it. I say all the time that the world is changing in reference to this subject. I have a very special anecdote on how this world is changing and how "we" are gaining more tolerance from the "normals". But tolerance and acceptance are very different things.

I realize that as humans we will always be discriminated against for some reason by someone. this is human nature, the law of the pack. someday we may all have tattoos. or piercings. But it wont stop people from hating others for almost no reason. Racism, sexism, hatred based on religion, gender, sexual preference, nationality, political affiliation, height, weight, hair color, you name it, someone hates someone else for it. it always was, and will always be. And for this i am so sorry and ashamed.

Someday we may all have tattoos. But dont we all have enough in common already to stop hating each other?

sorry for writing an article length comment on an article.

I just left Japan after three years, and I'm still (pleasantly) amazed at how open tattoos are over here in the States. With a few very limited exceptions, a Japanese person cannot have anything we would consider a career or professional job with tattoos, whether they're covered up or not by clothing. My first tattoo (of four) was easily covered up even by an ankle sock, yet that would have made me unemployable over there, once a boss knew that I had it. Yes, we have a long way to go towards acceptance, and I agree with the writer that there should be a middle ground between the employer and employee, but we could be a lot worse.

Why get heavily tattooed if you need to cover them up anyway?

because you don't have to keep them covered all the time?

i enjoy feeling like a secret agent.

i appreciate everyone's thoughtful comments on the column. some very interesting ideas!

Here in Asheville it almost seems like a tattoo is a pre-requisite for getting a job here. I know it's not true, but you can hardly go to any restaurant downtown and not see a tattooed hostess or server. I guess however that corporate jobs are different than the service industry.

I personally thought that your 'article' was both romantic about this issue, as well as writtin on a pratical level. Thanks for sharing

I heartily disagree.

the whole proto-libertarian argument that places of employment can or should be biased in regards to prospective employees with bodymods is highly troubling.

In the first instance, if the bottom line for businesses is to make money--then the sole criterion for employee selection should be competence.

The strongest objection to my heretical view might be that this could lead business to lose profits--both in lost productivity (through distracting other employees) as well as through the loss of customers who may (rightly or wrongly) view tattooed individuals with suspicion.

In response, we currently forbid companies to discriminate based on characteristics that society holds irreleveant to job performance--gender, sexual preference, ethnicity and so forth. we do this WHETHER OR NOT some individuals at a company might find it "distracting" to have a co-worker in one of these categories, and WHETHER OR NOT businesses claim that their customer base would prefer all-white sales reps, or all-female flight attendants.

We forbid this behavior because as an (ostensibly) democratic and egalitarian society we hold that people should be judged solely on their own merits--which in the job market should be confined to performance rather than looks. After all, most of us would find it highly troubling if a company said "we only hire lawyers/teachers/retail clerks that are exceptionally attractive". why is it any less troubling when companies refuse to hire otherwise competent employees because they prefer a certain "look"?

What is more, the loss of customers is a collective action problem. If companies could not discriminate against individuals based on physical appearance then customers would quickly have to get over their aesthetic preferences (as well they should in a democratic society) if they wanted goods and services.

I do not think an individual should have to live to work. If an employee is competent and would work diligently for an employer--bringing added value to a company--I find it reprehensible that they should be compelled to make a decision between working in their industry of choice or having an inescapably visible tattoo or piercing.

sermon's over.