I donât. I am fine with having people be whores by putting things on their faces for attention. That is what youâre saying. Drawing attention to your face is whoring. Why do you think Catholics who put smudges on their foreheads are whoring? Thatâs a more legitimate question.
Oh I do, I recruit both externally and internally and manage a large team. I understand all about the challenges of leading a team with diverse and different backgrounds and personalities. Making snap judgements about someone in an interview is a mistake and one i have made both from my negative and positive assumptions of applicants.
What else doesnât fit your needs? A woman? Someone with kids? A Jew who wants those holidays off? A black guy who some of your clients will not immediately feel comfortable with? Someone under 40? Someone over 50?
Now I will tell you why I used that particular analogy. Because that one is fine for you. You donât see it as attention whoring. But things you donât know about or care to know about are âwhoringâ to you. And thatâs why this argument is so ridiculous. Why would it â â â â â â â matter what color someoneâs hair is? Can they do the job? Do you need someone to do the job? The idea that one physical characteristic of someone is a no go in a hiring situation is â â â â â â â ridiculous. And I do realize that someone is going to come in here with if the person had a swastika tatooed on their face, but I think we can draw the line at blatantly offensive attributes. Which the color of hair is definitely not.
That was quick. I can give a reasonable explanation as to why I donât want someone representing my company who has a swastika on their face, or I can work with them on a plan to remove it if they no longer believe in what they did when they had it tattooed. But there isnât an argument for that for having purple hair. Can you honestly say that there is?