New Post
Search
HelpRe: What do you think of this name?
in reply to a message by mirfak
I don't think that at all. I'm just showing the research that some people do.
I have no problems with working or hiring someone named Flower or Rajayjay or John or whatever. In fact, I already do (not those exact names, but you catch the drift). And I think most people do, and most sane people would also realize that someone named Parfalofopus would have no less of a work ethic than someone named John and that someone named John would have no more of a work ethic than someone named Parfalofopus.
Just as some HR reps wouldn't hire someone based on their names, some absolutely do. There are some workplaces that seek out diversity, and judge names with the intention of hiring various different "types" of employees. Some workplaces that have more of an influx of one gender or another also use name discrimination, much like your article highlighted. I know where I work, which is mostly females, the managers absolutely jump on any males that apply because a little male testosterone on our unit can change the whole workplace dynamic. Some women with the same qualifications have not been hired, but the male has, because there is some sort of "quota" some workplaces have for various genders, ethnicities, etc. College is a perfect example of this when they fill a "minority" quota.
So really, I think your name doesn't really matter in the grand scheme for hiring. For every biased workplace that won't hire you for your name there is an equally biased workplace that will.
I think its obvious that the mainstream has already changed their perceptions on names based on what people name their kids today. Kiley and Cash are normal today and someone 100 years ago wouldn't have dreamed of naming their kids that. Today, I think its more strange to hear of a newborn Agnes or Charles.
I have no problems with working or hiring someone named Flower or Rajayjay or John or whatever. In fact, I already do (not those exact names, but you catch the drift). And I think most people do, and most sane people would also realize that someone named Parfalofopus would have no less of a work ethic than someone named John and that someone named John would have no more of a work ethic than someone named Parfalofopus.
Just as some HR reps wouldn't hire someone based on their names, some absolutely do. There are some workplaces that seek out diversity, and judge names with the intention of hiring various different "types" of employees. Some workplaces that have more of an influx of one gender or another also use name discrimination, much like your article highlighted. I know where I work, which is mostly females, the managers absolutely jump on any males that apply because a little male testosterone on our unit can change the whole workplace dynamic. Some women with the same qualifications have not been hired, but the male has, because there is some sort of "quota" some workplaces have for various genders, ethnicities, etc. College is a perfect example of this when they fill a "minority" quota.
So really, I think your name doesn't really matter in the grand scheme for hiring. For every biased workplace that won't hire you for your name there is an equally biased workplace that will.
I think its obvious that the mainstream has already changed their perceptions on names based on what people name their kids today. Kiley and Cash are normal today and someone 100 years ago wouldn't have dreamed of naming their kids that. Today, I think its more strange to hear of a newborn Agnes or Charles.
This message was edited 7/21/2013, 3:43 AM
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1