March 2012
25 posts
Rip Davy.
I’m so bummed out. I’m still a daydream believer, even if I seem to young to be. (I used to watch all the reruns on nick at nite).
February 2012
38 posts
Wow, I woke up before Alexander did. Got in a FULL cup of coffee, wow. Today is going to be a productive one!
Update. New Poll Question about underage... →
“are you a “crunchy” parent?
take the poll!”
– www.inkartbyjenn.blogspot.com
"If I met you in real life..." finish it in my...
Blogger update…no poll on this one but there are the results of my last poll on tattooed ladies. Poll questions are fun, I’ll try to crank out more of them. WWW.inkartbyjenn.blogspot.com
“1 day left to cast your vote in my poll on tattooed ladies! (it’s on my...”
– www.inkartbyjenn.blogspot.com
Thanks for your vote!
my rebuttal to "Why put a bumper sticker on a...
http: //www.ubspectrum.com/opinion/why-put-a-bumper-sticker-on-a-ferrari-1.2755789#.TyneSFwS2Ag
(please read, if you haven't already)
The author of the above article (I pressume a student at U of Buffalo but I'm not positive on this), may have written this as some sort of publicity stunt. If that's the case IT SURE IS WORKING! It never really surprises me when someone spouts off about tattoos but what got me in Lisa's article was her blatant anti-feminist ideas. I didn't even consider myself a feminist until after reading this and found myself getting heated up about what women are supposed to act like. I am responding not only as a tattooed woman but as a parent, wife and artist.
Let's get the most obvious out of the way: tattooed mummies have been found dating back to the second millennium BC so body art is not exclusive to the 21st century. That's just plain ignorance. There is a plethora of tattoo history available online, in libraries and in many many museums around the globe. When a person has "class" it seems we are referring more to the person's character. Although class can also be style I don't feel the two are necessarily interchangeable. A man could so easily dress well, be clean cut and tattoo-less but could also be a complete ass. Same goes for a woman. How could a lack of body art determine class? An ink-free lady could just as easily look like hell and act like she has no manors. While a inked lady could dress well, be educated and act lady-like. To make such generalizations about tattooed women seems a bit ignorant was well. And by extension, what does this mean for tattooed/untattooed men?
The author then continues about flaunting the female body. Going to the gym, wearing high heels to accentuate legs, trendy clothing and shopping malls are what she considers more acceptable means for a woman and her body. So consumerism and exhibition are somehow "more productive" activities than getting tattooed. I personally find nothing feminine about shopping or getting my nails done and am insulted that ANOTHER FEMALE would stereotype in such a way. Major stereotyping. The author makes no claim to being a feminist which, I suppose, is good because she has written an article telling women what we should spend our time doing, where to spend our money AND what to do with our bodies. Oh and most of those suggestions are for enhancing our physical appearance. Ironic, no? To parallel a vehicle (even if it is a Ferrari) and the female form seems awfully sexist as well.
In reference to tattoos having meaning, as any tattoo artist can tell you, a tattoo can be part of a healing/grieving process for some. They can serve as very important reminders or memorials. Perhaps this seems contrive to her as she seems to know a lot about life and how to overcome things by purchasing material goods or doing 40 minutes of cardio. For many people out there tattoos are bear heavy significance. They don't expect outsiders to understand. "Nothing comes out of getting a tattoo." This is a matter of opinion, actually her entire article is a matter of opinion. How does getting your nails done, getting a haircut or buying a pair of Pradas lead to self-growth? It doesn't.
Grandparents with tattoos. This is the second article this week that I've read on the subject. Actually, the first was a Q & A in Parents Magazine. The parent didn't like her mother's tattoos and didn't know how to handle the situation with the little kids (grandkids) who were asking about them. Both Lisa and "the parent" sound like they are really struggling with where tattoos land on one's moral compass. In modern America tattoos are no longer synonymous with criminals and devil worshipers. Although some social circles still frown upon them, and probably always will, perhaps the "lesson" here is acceptance. Or not judging a book by its cover. Grandma likes what she likes and shouldn't have to hide who she is. The grandparent could simply tell the truth about his/her tattoos, no need to lie or be "in a rut". The tattoos will look old and wrinkly but they aren't hurting anyone or teaching your kids to steal/lie/cheat.
"God knows the last thing this world need is another generation of kids questioning their basic values and morals." Wow. I bet generations older than myself have their own rebuttal to this. I myself will continue to decorate my temple and the temples of others. It's OK with me if Lisa doesn't like it and I won't pass judgement on her character for not doing her own decorating.
If you don't like 'em, don't look at 'em.
Likewise, if I don't like your french tips I won't look at those either.
Hugs & Kisses,
Jenn Kakoyannis
...on that anti-tattooed women blog
I will be writing a response to this in the very near future. As soon as I get a chance. It will be looong winded, ha! Stay tuned!