And then acting all surprised. Via the comments, a conundrum for our times:

In the comments, Jen replies,

Never mind the ‘f*ggot’ necklace, the bullring might as well say MASSIVE LIABILITY, DO NOT EMPLOY.

The above does seem to be yet another variation of, “I’ve chosen to send a round-the-clock provocative, anti-social message. Why are people noticing my round-the-clock provocative, anti-social message?”

And when someone, a supposed adult, goes out of their way to announce that they have the mindset of a resentful, unhappy teenager, it seems wise to register that message and to respond accordingly. Say, by hiring someone else.

From deep in the archives, this came to mind:

And so we’re expected to believe that Mr Clark, who chose to make a bold statement by deliberately stretching and deforming his earlobes – to the extent that a jar of instant coffee could almost fit through the holes – is somehow being wronged, indeed oppressed, when, during job interviews, potential employers notice – and find inappropriate – the bold statement that he’s chosen to make.

Having decided at university to scandalise the less daring whenever in public, he now seems surprised when those same less daring people make choices of their own, i.e., not to hire him. But aren’t their raised eyebrows and looks of disgust what he wanted all along? 

The archived post, linked above, prompted a long and lively discussion in which we noticed the number of Observer readers who feel that Mr Clark and other body-modification enthusiasts are entitled to be hired regardless of how they present themselves to an employer (and to that employer’s customers). As if contrarian choices should never have real-world consequences of an unflattering kind. As if actively choosing to make one’s chances of employment slimmer and more perilous were a thing to be both applauded and rewarded.

Update, via the comments:

Regarding our aggrieved FedEx employee, sk60 adds,

So can I wear a ‘f*ggot’ necklace to work? How about one that says ‘n*gger’…?

To which, Old Glyn replies, drily,

Only if you identify as ‘black.’

It might, I think, be amusing to watch the FedEx HR department trying to devise coherent rules as to which employees are allowed to wear such items, and which aren’t, based on the employee’s melanin levels and sexual inclinations. And then having to factor in whether any given customer, of any hue and/or inclination, might find such items equally charming when being handed their parcels.

Readers may also wish to ponder the apparent need to share such adornment dramas with the world, with random strangers, via social media. As if one were the subject of a gripping documentary series. Or a reality-TV star, albeit on a budget. And so, our supposedly downtrodden exhibitionist boasts of defying his employer in a TikTok video that can easily be found by said employer.

Which prompts the thought that, for some, the need for drama and attention, and contrived victimhood, may trump the more mundane need for employment, at least for a while. And should our hero’s employment consequently be discontinued, we can presumably look forward to more videos professing new heights of martyrdom.

Also, open thread. Share ye links and bicker.

Support this Blog


Subscribestar
Share: