Week 9 - "Not Just For Bikers"

In "Not Just For Bikers Anymore: Popular Representations of American Tattooing" Margo DeMello examines the ways in which tattoos have been represented by mainstream American media, by academics, and by the people who wear tattoos. Early in her paper, DeMello talks about 4 different events she attended that held tattoos as the main focus. These events "were organized and attended by individuals eager to portray a new culture of tattooing, one that includes, not bikers and other "low lifes," but educated professionals..." (DeMello 38). For my research paper, I too am examining the shift from "primitive" tattooing to "fine art" tattooing and the impacts that shift has on society's desire to accept tattoos into out mainstream consciousness. As a writer, I know I'm supposed to be neutral when I analyze my sources, and I don't doubt that once I start writing my paper, I'll be able to do that. However, as a reader, this simple description stuck with me, "not bikers and other "low lifes," but educated professionals..." Bikers and "other low lifes?" So, we're counting bikers as low lifes in this article, yes?

I'm not entirely naive, I know that bikers have just about as bad of a reputation as people with tattoos and the tow are often synonymous. What bothers me is this: I'm a biker. I have tattoos. I'm not a criminal or a "low life" and I'm certainly not uneducated. Despite the fact that one of my tattoos is easily visible, I'm a working professional too. So, what does that make me? If tattoos and bikers were synonymous with criminal, uneducated low life and the tattoo community is being rehabilitated by "fine art" tattoos, then what am I? What do we call a college educated, working professional who happens to have tattoos and ride a Harley? What do we call my sister who has a Master's in Business and runs a $50 million global corporation, but also rides a Harley and is inked? I think we're definitely the face of the new tattoo generation, the movement that seeks to rehabilitate the way people view tattooed people, but does that rehabilitation extend to the Harley rider's image as well. I know that is irrelevant for my paper, but as a person...I wonder.

Reading the words "tattoo" and "low life" in the same sentence reminded me of being a kid and seeing tattooed people. That was always the attitude in my childhood. If someone had tattoos, they must be a bad person. So, if you're asking me why any of this matters, and most people are asking me exactly that when I say "tattoos" as a research topic, I'd say this: It matters because we're teaching intolerance. It matters because one day our toddlers will  be 22  and writing a research paper and what view do we want them to have? Do we want them to be intolerant and judgmental or do we want to impart the best of ourselves? Because it's not just about ink or no ink. It's about looking at something, anything that is different about another person and ostracizing them for it. It was race and gender for our grandparents, maybe it's tattoos and homosexuality for us.