Unfortunately the real solution, anonymity, will probably never be adopted because there are groups who benefit from being identified. There's way too much many in tech to for the incumbents to leave it to merit.
Unfortunately the real solution, anonymity, will probably never be adopted because there are groups who benefit from being identified. There's way too much many in tech to for the incumbents to leave it to merit.
*https://pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/domestic-policy/going-bli...
One would think, no?
But there's a considerable number of people who don't feel that way - they think that 50/50 gender balance is a 'moral imperative' for example.
Surely, it's their right to think that, even promote it. But I'm weary of that kind of ideology being used to shut down other voices - which I think happens frequently.
I believe that the Guardian article (and the Graun as a whole, I read it every day and see the pattern) speaks to this: that specific minorities are underrepresented in certain roles 'must be due to racism' I think is unfair. Surely it plays a part, but there are so many other factors.
We need cool, rational heads on this subject.
i assume minorities here doesn't include Indians.
If you can't imagine a Kennedy or a character on 1950s US TV having the name, don't use it. Having a "special" name is unlikely to bring any benefit, and may well have significant social costs (plus having always to repeat yourself and spell your name, correcting misspellings on forms, et c.)
With my three young kids I already regret the very, very slightly unusual name we used for the first one (ordinary spelling for the name, name has a long history but it's almost homophonic with a 20x more common name, which we should have just used instead). Just don't do it.
Even as a professional working for a small business, I get re-introduced over and over again to the same people. I'm sure that my words and appearance play a role in that as well, but surely my name is not helping.