I apologise for the triteness of the title; this was written as a speech to be performed for a Probus Club competition and besides being written for a somewhat conservative demographic, had set topics, i.e., "Don't Judge a Book by its Cover".
At A Glance Author Luisa Contact [email protected] When N/A So, without further ado!
Don't judge a book by its cover.
My name is Luisa and I have chosen to speak about body modification, or rather, why employees should not suffer prejudice because of their body modifications.
A prejudice is an unreasoning opinion, and in this context it is the blind fear and hatred of those with body modification that stops modified employees receiving fair treatment.
Body modification is the practise of making partial changes to ones body, a voluntary practise that does not include plastic surgery, but rather spans the myriad of possibilities including piercing, tattooing, implants, scarification and more.
With these definitions in mind, I will outline the bias that modified employees encounter; followed by reasons behind such prejudicial assumptions, and lastly I will cover why these employees should not be biased against on such a basis.
Modified employees suffer bias on a personal level, even though this treatment is harsh and society frowns upon it, and thus legislation has been passed to illegalise prejudice on the grounds of race, gender, sexuality, etc. Body modification is not covered though, as it is a voluntary choice, and thus modified people have been fired on such a basis.
An example is of David Clinger. Mr. Clinger, a procyclist with aspirations to compete in the tour de France, returned from a stay in New Zealand with a Maori-influenced tattoo covering parts of his face. A small part of the tattoo would have been visible with the cycling helmet on. Even after agreeing to compromise by beginning expensive and painful laser surgery to remove this small part, Mr. Clinger was still asked to leave his job.
Modified employees are forced to be a role model for the entire modified culture. This is because so few companies are accepting of modifications. This ensures that such modified employees have to work harder then non-modified people to receive the same treatment and keep their jobs. They are often asked to explain intensely personal modifications on a day to day basis, often by people not wanting their preconceived notions disproved. A devotee of rhinoplasty or breast augmentation would rarely be asked such questions.
Indeed, plastic surgery is similar to body modification on a number of levels. Similar to practitioners of amputation, those that undergo plastic surgery do so to match their inner sense of self to how they appear on the outside.
Yet, those that undergo plastic surgery rarely experience prejudice. If a person is applying for a job, they will not be asked to remove their C cup breasts and return to an A for the duration of the job. They will not be asked to reverse their face lift or reinject a layer of fat. Why should a potential employee with a nose piercing have to remove the jewellery for their job, then?
Well, they have to because, to mainstream society, a modified person is one to be wary of. A modified person is classed stereotypically as a criminal, freak, or to have something wrong with them. Society deems these personal modifications to be unacceptable and should not be emulated and thus employees applying for jobs which have contact with younger persons are often turned down.
Another contributor towards the bias of modified employees is that of the Church, or, more succinctly, the Bible. In the Old Testament, in Leviticus 19:28, it states "You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you. I am the Lord."
However, the same section of Leviticus also preaches against the wearing of clothes made from more the fibres of more then one plant, and this should be proof enough that the earlier statement can also be interpreted more meaningfully if looser connotations are applied. I'm sure there hasn't been an employee ever fired for the grave sin of wearing 50% cotton, 50% linen shirts, so why should a covered tattoo be any different?
It shouldn't be. However, it cannot be fully understood why modified people should not be biased upon without understanding the reasons behind their modifications.
These reasons, which may prompt a scalpelled frenum or a 0 gauge ear lobe, are above all, intensely personal. Those with body modifications have purposefully decreased their shared characteristics as a human to focus on their individuality. Modifications show what is important to a person, and what they strive for, as demonstrated by tattooed quotes, such as "Hold fast." People with modifications often assign to them particular symbolism, an example being those of a homosexual tendency attaining a visible piercing to express their "coming out". Modifications often express major events in the lives of a person, such as to remember a loved one or a significant event such as 9/11.
To summarise, most people with serious body modifications do so because of multiple influences, with the idea and search for individuality being a key factor.
Body modification is becoming an integral part of society. Today, many, many people are modified. Every Australian will come into contact with someone with body modifications, and a recent survey completed in Sydney has discovered that 84% of those surveyed indicated that they would still utilise the services of a business if the business hired modified employees as long as they provided the same services with civility.
Another huge factor into ceasing the prejudicial treatment of modified employees is that modifications are prevalent amongst the younger generation. This is the same younger generation that will soon be a huge part of the workforce. The same younger generation with insight towards the technological changes that so hallmark this era. Employers will have to let go of their traditional values to accommodate for this and, hopefully sooner rather then later, modified youths will have only as much trouble as non-modified youths in finding a job, because the only factors that should determine employment are non-personal ones such as education or availability.
First and foremost, employees, potential or hired, should not be biased against because of their modifications for the simple reason that these modifications do not negate their qualifications.
It's the year 2006 and old values need not apply. Employees with modifications need not suffer primitive prejudices and be branded as a freakish stereotype and regularly interrogated with the question "why on earth would you do that to yourself?" The reasoning behind this stereotyping is faulty as modifications are attained for worthy reasons and not just to be trendy or appear thuggish.
So, who should be hired? A girl with dyed hair and 8 piercings and a predilection for music by Marilyn Manson, or the South Australian Young Businessperson of the Year, an honour student with grade 6 AMEB qualifications?
Either way, you have just employed me, Luisa. So don't judge a book by its cover, and don't judge an employee on their modifications, instead, grant them the consideration by choosing instead on their qualifications.