To think it is not my fault her daughter got a tattoo!

[han3459]

Hi all,

Wondering about a situation that's occurred over the last few days. My oldest DD is 19 and has had a best friend since primary school who is 18.

My DD decided she wanted to get a small tattoo on the inside of her foot over the summer but decided to wait until the Christmas break so she was sure it was what she wanted and so she could be at home to get it done. I heard from my DD that her friend also wanted a tattoo and so they decided to book the appointment together.

As neither of them have cars I offered to give them a lift to the tattoo place as I needed to go to town, and then drop her friend home afterwards as we drive past hers anyway.

Later on that evening, I get a phone call from the girl's mum who is furious. She said she would not given her daughter permission as she hates tattoos and apparently I am irresponsible for both allowing my daughter to get a tattoo at her age and for not checking her daughter was allowed with her first.

I explained to her that IMO my daughter doesn't need permission as she is 19 and therefore and adult, free to make her own decisions. I believe the same applies to her daughter as she is 18 and legally does not need parental permission.

I have known in the past her mum is very strict with her but it never even crossed my mind to check whether she knew or not. I don't see why I need to. I don't really agree with the way she parents so we have little to do with each other but have always been friendly when we do see each other.

I had nothing to do with it other than drive them there but it is my fault for 'encouraging their behavior'. She has now demanded in future I am too check decisions regarding her daughter with her I refused to do this as I told her I would not be treating her daughter like a child and the conversation ended with lots of shouting from her and then she hung up.

I really don't see the problem, they are both adults???? So AIBU or is this women really controlling???

Matt Taylor hasn't the best record for presenting himself in a professional manner though has he.

Offending thousands of people by a crass choice of shirt for a TV interview, before breaking down in tears while making a public apology for his choice of sexist clothing.

Hardly a role model.

I worked as a recruitment consultant for a number of years and I had some major clients in the finance and IT sector who would not want to even interview a tattooed candidate.
It would reflect badly on me as a consultant and on my company to send candidates who had visible tattoos.

The job market is tough enough without handicapping your chances like this.

Your clients would never have known about my tattoos, big blue - but that does not mean they do not exist. Nor do they impact on my ability to do my job to a professional standard. I wonder if your clients are actually as bothered as you think, or if this is your obvious prejudice coming to the fore? Would they discriminate against a person with a facial disfigurement too or would they be more concerned about their ability to do the job?

FWIW, my mother was horrified when I got my first tattoo. I was 39. And it was none of her business. I knew she wouldn't like it, so I didn't tell her for a few months because I couldn't be arsed dealing with her judgemental attitude.

I certainly wasn't "brought up that way." I was brought up to be a Tory, but developed my own powers of reasoning and see no reason why I have to share my parents political beliefs. Growing up is about developing independent thought. And body autonomy.

"visible tattoos"- there was a clue in the phrase.

And no it wasn't my judgement- I was informed by company managers that visible tattoos were off the agenda. As were facial piercings. And interestingly both companies I dealt with had a very pro active stance towards people with disabilities, employing many in customer facing roles.

But having a disability os not something people choose to do. Unlike a tattoo.
When to make the choice to deface your body you do so knowing that not everyone will appreciate it.

Perhaps if you read my post you will see that I was very aware of your phrase and was making the point that whether or not a person has tattoos has exactly nothing to do with their ability to do a job.

it's prejudice, pure and simple: person X will not represent the company ethos because of reason Y to do with their physical appearance. That could be tattoos, piercings, hairstyle, weight, skin colour etc. It's a pretty crap job assessment that relies on such criteria. It's a pretty crap company that insists on that and I certainly would not want to be associated with the in any way.

A facial disfigurement does not automatically equal a disability, which is "a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities." I'm surprised that as a recruitment consultant you clearly do not understand that, as evidenced above. And I have a nasty feeling your former clients would not want someone with a facial birthmark, regardless of their brilliance.

When I made my adult and informed choice to have a tattoo I considered many things. I did not give any weight to the opinions of small-minded people.

But we live in a society. Like it or not we have to be able to conform in order to make our lives good.
If that means not being naked at the school gates to pick up our kids or picking our noses at a job interview then we have to realise that some things are not in our best interests.
53dragon's excellent post pointed out the many negative connotations associated with tattoos.
These attitudes are within our society's recent past.

Anyone having a tattoo must realise than in choosing that course of action they are aligning themselves with a bunch of society with a dubious credentials.

Which I suspect is part of the appeal. Naiive.

I am well aware we live in a society. However, society and its societal norms are not set in stone. Nor is it a given that conforming is good or indeed right. Often change is necessary in order for society to progress.

Women did not always have the same employment rights as men. People used to be discriminated against because of the colour of their skin.

Conforming is well and good if your only desire is to maintain the status quo. Having a tattoo does not equate to "not conforming" because society has moved on considerably, so that your views are now at variance with what is accepted.

You make negative connotations about tattoos - that is your decision, but as you are aware people will challenge you on the rationality of that decision and may consider you naïve and prejudiced.

To claim that because I have a tattoo (or indeed ore than 1 tattoo) that means I am "aligning myself with a bunch of society with dubious credentials" is patently ridiculous and has no basis in logic or reality.

I'm a 50-something who works in an office environment. I don't drink and the most "out there" thing I do is walk my dog after it gets dark.

Goodness, I must work in a real den of iniquity, as most of my colleagues have visible tattoos, and that does not detract from their ability to do their jobs. Indeed, I must also be on the dark side, as i have tattoos, which i can cover up or leave visible. If someone doesn't like them, that is their problem, not mine. i was in my 30s when I got my first one. My mother never saw them, but I dare say she would have got used to them, even though I was not 'brought up that way'. Tattoos are no longer unusual. Both my DDs have them and while i might not like the ones DD1 has, it is none of my business. Her body, her choice.

'Dubious credentials' - what racy alternative fantasy world are you living in?

And bollocks do we 'have to conform'. That's the same argument that would have MN's many lesbian mothers keeping Discreet to start with .

'We live in a society' really?

Like it or not times are changing. Tattoos are becoming more acceptable. The NHS, one of the biggest employers in the world, has completed 360'd its view. I see registrars with full sleeve tattoos and -shock horror - they're still amazing at their jobs.

If you don't move forward you get left behind. That doesn't mean you have to embrace tattoos, but it means dropping stubborn pathetic judgemental attitudes.

Big bluestar in my opinion having your bigoted attitude aligns you with more people of dubious credentials than a tattoo does.

YNBU, Her daughter is 18 not 8.

i think "Is it compulsory to be driven to the tattoo parlour? Do they refuse to tattoo you, if you travel by bus?" is to say does the mum think that if the OP hadnt driven the girl to the tattoo palour, and she had gone on the bus that she wouldnt have been able to get the tattoo?

Basically - the mum shouldnt have a go at the OP - its ok to feel upset your child has done something you dont like, but the child (adult at 18) makes their own decisions

I've never really felt the need to 'conform to make my life good'

Sounds tedious.

I think I'll just carry on in my own merry way, harming no one and laughing a lot.

All this angst makes me want to start planning my next tattoo. I'm considering a Tree of Gondor.

53Dragon your 'history' of tattooing is, unfortunately, quite sparse, whether deliberately or not. Tattooing goes back far longer than you stated, in fact to neolithic times. More recently, a House of Lords debate (1969) concluded that the upper and lower classes found it attractive but the middle classes rejected it. If you look at middle management and above in any of the Fortune 50 companies, you will be hard pressed to find any managers that have visible tattoos - I wonder if you know this for a fact, or are just spouting it as something you believe? I really don't believe you have had intimate enough dealings with all of this group to know what percentage of them have tattoos. I suspect more of them than you think.

bigbluestars is your language deliberately inflammatory, or are your views actually this narrow - deface your body, bunch of society with a dubious credentials?

And of course bigstar's spurious argument about people with tattoo allying themselves with some sort of deviant underworld is totally undermined by all those perfectly "normal" members of society he/she encounters who are secretly sporting tattoos under their clothes and of which he/she is completely ignorant. I bet quite a few of these tattooed deviants have even survived his/her recruitment process and gone on to successful careers.

Bigstar would never know I had tattoos unless I chose to tell him/her. Because there is no one thing that defines people who have tattoos other than the fact they have tattoos. Plus, if having a tattoo was good enough for George V, then it's good enough for little old me.

Facial tattoos are a part of Maori culture.

Does that mean all Maori people are dubious? Or that their traditions should be insulted as "defacing" themselves?

Ritual facial scarring is another tradition - and not necessarily limited to African nations. Duelling scars were a signal of the elite in Germany and Austria.

I don't know anyone wlse who feels that strongly about the issue though - I guess that is because most wise people, educated people, people who are secure in their own background etc, have far more important things to get angsty about than a tattoo one someone else.

Gosh who wants to conform?! I cannot think of anything duller

Thank goodness none of my places of work (including a prestigious firm of solicitors) gave two hoots about my body art. Because lets face it, having a tattoo of a bat has no correlation with being able to close multi-million pound housing deals. Who knew?

We all conform every day. What a stupid thing to say.

Do you push to the front af a post office queue or do you wait in line?
Do you walk around naked on a hot day?
Do you help yourself from the plates of other diners in a restaurant?
Do you swear loudly in a school playground?
Do you defacate in shops?
Do you ignore red lights in traffic?

"Gosh who wants to conform?! I cannot think of anything duller"

Yeah right.

Having a tattoo is very common now IMHO

The vast majority aren't visible

I think my friends and I would probably say what does your mum think about this but would take the child's word that it wasn't a problem and would therefore give them a lift

Although if my daughter wanted a lift to the tattoo parlour I wouldn't be giving her one as I'm not keen on them, I think they can look fab and I don't have a problem with people who have tattoos. I would just be worried that at 18 the design/idea may not have been thought out

I don't see that as me conforming because I am told to. That is me making a conscious decision not to behave like a dickhead and to treat people with respect. Some people do push in in the queue in the PO - usually stuffy looking middle-aged women who would faint at the idea of a tattoo.

Something that people with tattoos often don't get purely because they have chosen to adorn their body.

You are conforming by getting a tattoo nowadays if you are under 35- blindly following a fashion.

I'm 45.

I got my first tattoo when I was 40.

Dd would be fine though as DH would give her a lift

He'd probably pay for it too!!