skirtcafe.org

OK, this is a bit 'off topic' in that it is not MIS's but another facet of what people choose to 'wear' and display. What are your thoughts, and how might this relate to our, in my mind, rather more sedate variant.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/wor ... 561806001/

I am truly ambivalent on this issue. On the one hand I can sympathise with a person’s wish to express his personality in dress or body de oration but on the other there are some professions which demand a certain standard of dress or conformity to the norm. Speaking as a retired teacher this was something that was made clear to me at the outset. A teacher is in a unique position to influence those in his/her charge and should always bear this in mind.
That being said, parents are also in a similar position with regard to their own children and have a responsibility to educate them as well. This is something that many fall down on It can be argued here that the whole thing has been handled badly by the school management who could have made an attempt to resolve this issue by mutual discussion. From the article it would appear that he had the tattoos when he was employed. Why was the issue not addressed then. His employers appear to have accepted his appearance so they should have backed him instead of taking the soft option and caving in.

Shilo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:00 pmA teacher is in a unique position to influence those in his/her charge and should always bear this in mind.

To put it into an adult perspective, how would you feel being approached by a cop so tricked out? I rather suspect you'd get a bit wigged out by all the modification that guy did -- even to the point of darkening the whites of his eyes. That alone could well scare the daylights out of a sensitive child.

The guy should be in circus, nowhere else. With such a mutilated appearance he has no business teaching small children, that's for sure.

Tom

Shilo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:00 pm I am truly ambivalent on this issue.........A teacher is in a unique position to influence those in his/her charge and should always bear this in mind.

What does seeing a male teacher wearing a jacket and tie and letting female teachers wear floral dresses say to young children about society and expectations?

I agree that for certain if he was employed looking like that then he should have been backed by him employers. It's not really possible to be sure we have all the facts, of course. Anyway, returning to the subject, some people seem to take issue with him being employed looking like that in the first place, but surely appearance should not be that important......how often have you phoned tech support and checked to see if they are wearing the right clothes or asked how many tattoos they have? The argument that he "might scare the children" could equally be used against employing people who are disabled or disfigured. Is this not the reason why employers have Equality, diversity and inclusion policies and the like? Otherwise, where do you stop?

I have seen discrimination in action: Many years ago it was very noticeable in one local bar that, other than the manager, all the staff were female. Not only that, they notably all had larger than average size appendages. Another bar/cafe would only employ polish women (the manager was from the middle East). He would often date his staff, but it appears that that wasn't very innocent. In the latter example, discrimination also meant exploitation. Whilst nothing was officially done about it, the guy "unexpectedly" lost the contract when it came up for renewal - the right ears has heard what was going on.

Kirbstone wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 7:41 pm The guy should be in circus, nowhere else. With such a mutilated appearance he has no business teaching small children, that's for sure.

Tom

Agreed.

This has nothing to do with "what you wear," as the thread title suggests. Nor does it have anything to do with those who are disabled or disfigured through no fault of their own.

Yes, this is discrimination, but it is justified! Not all discrimination is wrong, and this guy should have known he would become nearly unemployable.

I have friends with tattoos, and while I have none myself, I have no problem with many tattoos. That said, I would strongly caution anyone thinking of getting one, both with regard to what it contains and where it is placed. You are going to lose the ability forever to work in certain fields if you have tattoos that cannot be covered. Even more depending on their content. Even tattoos in places that are easily covered could cause problems if you want to go into a handful of fields, like policing or the military.

The world is very much moving on regards tattoos, and rightly so. I would say that there is little connotation of prison these days, which perhaps is a factor. An interesting point, I think, is that I probably know more women with large tattoos, and these are very visible, than I do men. None seems to have had problems in finding work. From observation, and 2 mins research, it seems to be becoming a non-issue with many police forces, and that would perhaps be true on both sides of the Atlantic.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... tattoo-ban

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/charlo ... ow-tattoos

There are some fantastic colourful tattoos around these days. I would not get one myself any more than I would wear the same t-shirt for the rest of my life.... and certainly the the tribal ones I find unimaginative, but each to their own. I do, however, own a pair of "tattoo" tights, which, when I have worn them under ripped jeans, people have thought were actual tattoos.

I can easily see how little kids could be scared by this character; when I first saw him I jumped in my chair.

Say what you will about me; that's a look I can't support.

I think that the main problem is the tattooing of the head and, particularly, the face. Body tattoos can be covered but facial ones can't. It seems logical that facial tattoos are virtually guaranteed to make one unemployable. Not surprised at the outcome an have little sympathy.

Sinned » Thu Oct 01, 2020 12:48 pm

I think that the main problem is the tattooing of the head and, particularly, the face.

Dennis, I think you are probably correct in identifying the "shock" factor here. When I opened this thread it was see what it might reveal about our own deviations from the 'norm' and what principles we might apply. I readily confess I found the man's appearance shocking, and I've had what might be an "ageism" bias with regard to body art. Someone here said it: they'd no more wear the same shirt everyday than wear an irreversible tattoo -- but that along with the notion of self-preservation -- not doing things that likely will cause you harm, even if only reduced employment options unless you are prepared to accept the consequences for something that is more important to you, have kept me from being as 'free' as individuals could or should be allowed.

Anyway, those with tattoos have elected to step a bit outside of the mainstream, in as much as MIS have so elected -- yet it appears from the comments on this thread, we are prepared to 'judge' them more harshly than ourselves. This, to me, is an interesting philosophical question.

Just to add a little bit to the fire: The Maori in New Zealand commonly tattoo their heads and faces -- a part of their culture; and as they are pretty much assimilated into the larger Kiwi world, though striking in appearance, for the most part they are not considered 'shocking' nor shunned.

As I've said in regards to MIS and other issues, if you're going to live an eccentric life and choose to follow your own path, be prepared for blowback and occasional dramas. In other words "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen!"

Nobody is twisting our arm and making us wear skirts, and nobody twisted his arm and made him get those tattoos. It is a choice, and choices have consequences. We can't expect everyone to tolerate our decisions.

When I thought I was going to get fired from my last job, for wearing skirts (on my own time) I had already rehearsed my response:

"I disagree with your decision to terminate my employment, but I understand your reasons and respect the dilemma this situation puts the company in. I shall bow out gracefully".

Thankfully it never came to that. But one must always be prepared for such a scenario when choosing to break from the herd.

Another article I found on this guy made it sound like he was not fired, just moved out of kindergarten into teaching an older group of kids, who are still rather young.

Faldaguy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:22 amAnyway, those with tattoos have elected to step a bit outside of the mainstream, in as much as MIS have so elected -- yet it appears from the comments on this thread, we are prepared to 'judge' them more harshly than ourselves. This, to me, is an interesting philosophical question.

Tattoos are hardly "a bit outside the mainstream", not when they're on display almost everywhere and it's difficult to find someone who doesn't have at least one or two. The big difference is that we can take our skirts off at the end of the day, and if we feel the need to appear "conventional" can do so quite easily.

crfriend » Fri Oct 02, 2020 7:12 am

Faldaguy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 7:22 pm
Anyway, those with tattoos have elected to step a bit outside of the mainstream...,

Tattoos are hardly "a bit outside the mainstream", not when they're on display almost everywhere and it's difficult to find someone who doesn't have at least one or two. The big difference is that we can take our skirts off at the end of the day, and if we feel the need to appear "conventional" can do so quite easily.

OK, I'll grant tattoos may or may not be "a bit" outside of the mainstream... and that there is a distinction in that we can readily remove a skirt & not a tattoo -- so are you saying that it is one's ability to change their appearance at will that is essential to being "OK", or authentic, or approved....; and we must retain the option or ability to appear conventional? I doubt that is what you mean -- but I'm still looking for the justification of making judgments based on appearance alone.

Faldaguy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 6:32 am[...] so are you saying that it is one's ability to change their appearance at will that is essential to being "OK", or authentic, or approved....; and we must retain the option or ability to appear conventional? I doubt that is what you mean -- but I'm still looking for the justification of making judgments based on appearance alone.

"Judging a book by its cover" is usually a bad idea, but sometimes it's the only thing we can go on -- and sometimes snap judgements like that can save us from harm. Hence the child's response to the heavily-tattooed teacher -- that was a visceral fear response in seeing something that appeared both human and non-human at the same time; an inbuilt instinctual response to alert an adult to a problem the child cannot figure out.

I get curious looks from little ones all the time it they're in my presence, and I expect that for any number of reasons (e.g. sheer size, the beard, the length of my hair, &c.). When confronted so, I'll speak to the youngster in a gentle but normal tone (I do not use "kiddie speak" as I interpret that as disrespectful to the recipient) to reassure that I pose no threat. This I do not mind.

I suppose part of the "normalcy aspect" might simply be, "Don't frighten the children." One can appear non-conventional and still not be startling or frightening.

My general reaction to tattoos is -- and with women especially -- "What a rotten shame about all that scarring". The person that develops a safe, painless, and permanent way to remove tattoos is going to make Bill Gates look like a pauper.