Nonconformity vs. Stereotyping

Since the dawn of the first stain, there has been a blot out of judgment hanging over the stain scene. In the early days, however the wealthy could afford one however, that all changed with the invention of the electric tattooing machine. afterwards that, tattoos were everywhere, inescapable. The degenerates, as society began to label them, were seen as amicable abnormalities and have been associated with the mentally insane.The topic of this essay is to debate whether saucily York Times columnist David let Nonconformity is Skin Deep is a better argument than Associated heart blogger Georga Hackworths Stigmas, Stereotypes in Tattooing Why the Medical Community is to Blame. Both names advise insight to their respective feelings on the subject of tattooing both are powerfully opinionated, yet only one can be the superior of this essay, and that winner is David abide Nonconformity is Skin Deep, as he excels over the opposition.David Brooks Nonconformity is Skin Deep argume nt that tattooing is becoming a tender 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 perpetually work outbut the longing for permanence is admirable (Brooks). Hackworths Stigmas, Stereotypes of Tattooing Why the Medical Community is to Blame is just as win over as Brooks.She blames the psychology and psychiatry branch for their portrayal of hatful with tattoos as homosexuals, fetish enthusiasts, and barbaric(Hackworth). She backs up this claim with evidence promulgated 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 close only for the rich, only later to be adopted by the frequent man with the invention of the electric tattooing machine.As soo n as tattoos became affordable, the rich turned away as they no longer represented 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 to a great extent on their own expertise on the subject of tattooing. Brooks is an gracious 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 artist is labeled as barbaric yet the medical nursemaid is the one who jabs at her with various needles. Brooks sees the fad as a consumer product that will soon die out, leaving everyone with a tattoo, odd out of popularity. According to Brooks, the trend of trying to stray 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 unworthy 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 .