Nonconformity vs. Stereotyping

Since the dawn of the first stain, there has been a cloud of judgment hanging over the tattoo scene. In the early days, only the wealthy could chip in one however, that all changed with the invention of the electric tattooing machine. After that, tattoos were everywhere, inescapable. The degenerates, as society began to label them, were seen as social abnormalities and have been associated with the mentally insane.The topic of this essay is to deal whether New York Times columnist David brook Nonconformity is Skin Deep is a better argument than Associated Content blogger Georga Hackworths Stigmas, Stereotypes in Tattooing why the medical Community is to Blame. Both ruseicles offer insight to their respective feelings on the subject of tattooing both are strongly opinionated, yet only one can be the winner of this essay, and that winner is David Brooks Nonconformity is Skin Deep, as he excels over the opposition.David Brooks Nonconformity is Skin Deep argument that tattooing is congruous a social trend is persuasive he backs this by stating that tattoos are everywhere, inescapable. He wants us to assume that behind every judge, teacher, lawyer, housewife, etc lurks ink. Brooks makes a mockery of the tattoo fad by writing, these are expressions of commitmentthey dont always work outbut the longing for permanence is admirable (Brooks). Hackworths Stigmas, Stereotypes of Tattooing Why the aesculapian Community is to Blame is just as convincing as Brooks.She blames the psychology and psychiatry branch for their portrayal of people with tattoos as homosexuals, voodooism enthusiasts, and barbaric(Hackworth). She backs up this claim with evidence published in 1985s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Hackworth gives a brief history of the art of tattooing, discussing how in its early days was reserved only for the rich, only later to be adopted by the common man with the invention of the electric tattooing machine.As presently as tattoos b ecame affordable, the rich turned away as they no longer reppresented a social status. Soon after, only circus freaks and social outcasts became the rep for people with tattoos, a stereotype still reverberated today, a century later. Brooks and Hackworth rely heavily on their own expertise on the subject of tattooing. Brooks is an accomplished editor with a vast audience base of the upper crusts of society. Hackworth is a sexpert blogger who has felt the sting of being unjustly persecuted because of her tattoos.Hackworths Stigmas was written from a first hand account she, like most of the population with tattoos, has felt this unjustified stereotype as being social outcasts. She claims that ironically the tattoo artisan is labeled as barbaric yet the medical nurse is the one who jabs at her with various needles. Brooks sees the fad as a consumer product that bequeath soon die out, leaving everyone with a tattoo, left out of popularity. According to Brooks, the trend of trying to s tray from being a nonconformist is quickly becoming a conformity that is affecting everyone.Hackworth does not do justice with her piece she makes many grammatical errors that hurt her article than help it, making her seem despicable of our time. Brooks comes off as knowledgeable, smart, and humorous making his case more credible.Works Cited Brooks, David. Nonconformity is Skin Deep. New York Times 27 August 2006. Hackworth, Georga. Stigmas, Stereotypes of Tattooing Why the Medical Community is to Blame. 13 June 2008. Associated Content. September 2010 .