Tolerance is key to ending body modification stigma

I have a two-and-a-half-foot-long tattoo running down my side, from my shoulder to below my hip. 

My skin is shaded in various pigments, but an earthy orange and striking cerulean dominate the scene ­— a koi fish swimming upstream through tangles of lotus flowers. The fish is one of my several tattoos, but it is definitely the creme de la creme. I also have 19 piercings as well. Depending on the circumstances in which we meet, you may or may not know this about me.

In a professional setting, there is no reason for anyone to see my tattoos, considering they rest primarily on my ribs or thighs — places no employer has any business looking. However, not everyone schematically designs their personal living canvas as carefully as I have. It is quite common to see men and women sport visual tattoos and piercings.

While I understand that employers don’t want their employees to look like a biker gang, it seems that associating tattoos and piercings with deviant behavior is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the taboo were eliminated, employers wouldn’t need to censor their employees’ bodies as closely. In effect, expensive discrimination and freedom of religion lawsuits could be avoided. 

So, I think the best way to combat the stigma of these body modifications in the workplace is to actively work to make them less taboo by making them a familiar part of life.  

Examining the media, specifically television, it is evident that modified people are misrepresented. While 2010 data from Pew Research Center reports that nearly four in 10 millennials and roughly 32 percent of Gen-Xers have tattoos, that proportion is not represented on TV. Although many actors and actresses have tattoos, they are covered with makeup for production. Similarly, most news anchors would never dream of exposing their ink.

If the visual media makes it seem that no one is modified, it keeps the stigma alive. Since we only see average people with tattoos and piercings and almost never any successful people, we continue to cover up and continue to believe that body modifications are the province of gangs and garage mechanics.

In an interview with the New York Times, Iman Thomas, an employee at an insurance brokerage firm in Florham Park, N.J., discussed  covering her arm tattoos with a cardigan. She is an educated woman, but for fear of losing her job, she covers up. 

Hiding tattoos is a common practice, one that I am guilty of as well. While educated people should show their tattoos to help deplete the negative stigma associated with them, it is a risky move. When I go to interviews for internships or jobs, I’m always sure to wear conservative clothing that covers the microdermals on my collar bones. I put clear plastic jewelry in my nose and lip. Although I may not be dismissed for having my tattoos or piercings visible, there’s a great chance I may never be hired.

While there are no federal laws protecting individuals with tattoos from discrimination, the issue is complex if the tattoos or piercings are religious. The analysis is different in this scenario because it complicates our First Amendment right to freedom of religion. While Iman Thomas has a tattoo of the Virgin Mary, she still covers it.

Others aren’t as accommodating as Thomas. 

Kimberly Cloutier, an employee at a Massachusetts Costco store, sued the company in 2001 for not allowing her to wear an eyebrow ring under their new dress code. The store deemed all tattoos and facial piercings unprofessional. Cloutier, though, said the ring was part of her religion as a member of the Church of Body Modification.

The Church of Body Modification represents a collection of members practicing ancient and modern body modification rites. They believe these rites are essential to spirituality and strengthen the bond between mind, body and soul. Cloutier filed a discrimination case as a result of being unable to practice physical spirituality,  but lost. However, in the process, Costco lost a great deal of money. Judy Vadney, Costco’s personnel director, called it “very expensive litigation.”

Costly lawsuits such as these could be avoided if body modifications were tolerated. This benefits the corporations that spend money on discrimination cases and also benefits the population of modified people. When lawsuits are brought, they pit two groups against one another — the successful company and the average person. This only perpetuates the idea that tattooed and pierced people are troublemakers or rebels. 

Toleration and education is necessary to end the stigma. Consider depression — in the early 20th century, it was taboo. Depressed women who weren’t allowed to work were deemed “hysteric,” so women had to hide their boredom. With empathy over time, this illness lost its negative implication. Now, there are commercials for Zoloft and Wellbutrin on television everyday. Through seeing these ads, we become accustomed to how common depression can be. Although not as serious as depression, if modified people were also represented on television in realistic numbers, tattooed and pierced appearances would be less shameful.  

Toleration is double-sided, though. It may mean coming to compromises with an employer — maybe one facial piercing at a time, or gauged ears up to only a certain size, or covering half of your tattoos but not all of them. In this way, the evolution will be slow, but sure.

In 30 years, millennials will replace the older, more conservative generation as CEOs and lawmakers. If almost 40 percent of us are modified, we will be less likely to discriminate against one another in our workplaces. We are quite a force to be reckoned with, so change will come, and successful, tatted role models can throw off their cardigans. 

Until then, I’ll cover up. But I know that if my employer saw my tattoo and could appreciate it, they’d know it was art. Maybe they’d understand, then. Maybe if I told them that a koi fish swimming upstream was a motif for success, they’d understand. Or maybe they’d turn my visual depiction of success against me.

Courtney Linder is the Assistant Opinions Editor of The Pitt News and primarily writes on social issues.

Write to Courtney at cnl13@pitt.edu.