On Feb 5, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Nicholas Clark <n...@ccl4.org> wrote: 
> Yes. Surprisingly familiar set of names, most I recognise from at least 10
> years ago.
> Why aren't there new names?

Likely the same reason(s) as 10 or more years ago. :)

> (The breeding programme will take time to deliver results. Something needs
> to change in the meantime)

Well, there have been a lot of words wasted on "Why aren't there more women in 
$x?" for just as many years with just as little change and I do think the 
correlation is meaningful if not causation. The breeding programme does appear 
to be producing quite a few females so you'd think there'd be more earnest 
investigation instead of believing the world will be miraculously changed in a 
few years, but I'm not optimistic such will be the case.

An anecdote I'm fond of sharing since it still makes me laugh is when I noticed 
a group of 4yo pre-schoolers playing with a European layer puzzle of the human 
body (EU for anatomical realism) I asked them, "What is the largest organ in 
the human body?" Without exception, the girls pointed to their head or their 
hearts and the boys, well, the boys all pointed to the most cherished of male 
body parts. I managed to not make ribald comments leading to nightmares or 
corruption of such innocent souls and soldiered on informing them that, no, the 
skin is the largest of the organs in the human body. Again I asked the question 
and the girls, without exception, all pointed to their skin and, the boys all 
pointed to their cherished member. Some things don't change. :)

If you want change, you have to do more than ask why and have a panel of 
talking heads at a conference...or announce a new version of the language in 
hopes that change can be driven merely by external novelty.


Reply via email to