[Discussion] Feminism and social justice, plus FAQ!

Pages

This thread is for discussing feminist issues--from the narrow meaning (a movement for social justice in terms of gender equality) to the broader meaning (a movement for social justice, period), and from the scope of issues in gaming and geek culture to kyriarchy in general.

Basic questions are allowed here for now, we will split out a Q&A thread should it become necessary.

This thread is a continuation and replacement of the old Feminism Catch-All (with FAQ) thread.

This initial post is a placeholder for an FAQ in progress, and includes placeholder text between headings...


General Questions

Specific Questions

Existing threads of discussion

  • How does feminism relate to the rights of men, or does it? Should we call it something different? (Page 1)

Answers:

What is feminism?

Feminism is at its core the idea that women should be treated like human beings. That women deserve equal political, economic, and social rights to men. Wikipedia says: 'Today the Oxford English Dictionary defines a feminist as "an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women".'

There are a variety of social movements and ideologies that have grown out of this core belief, and this can lead to a great deal of confusion. Much of the wide variety in feminist ideologies is tied to different approaches to understanding gender inequality, its origins, and possible solutions arising from those approaches.

And yes, some of those ideas are rather odious at times.

But the heart of feminism? That's simply equal treatment. Not preferential treatment. Not the destruction of cultural institutions. Not having everyone dress in unisex clothing. Just... equal treatment.

Also see the question about men and women being different for some more details about what this means in more specific context.

Because gender inequality is at the heart of feminist concerns, feminism also frequently touches on other aspects of gender inequality and stereotyping (including GSRM issues), and wider issues of inequality (kyriarchy and intersectional issues).

Finally, note that because feminism is frequently about rigidity of gender roles and gender inequality, it's also about breaking down places where men are treated unequally towards women: when people look askance at a guy who wants to make a career working with kids, that's a feminist issue, because it's founded on an assumption that certain jobs are "women's work", and that any man who engages in those jobs must have ulterior motives.

Women have equal rights, don't they? Why is this still an issue?

...

(Note for later linkage: "What Does Modern Prejudice Look Like?" (NPR))

Why should we, on this site, care about feminism?

...

What does this feminist jargon mean?

Some things from later in this thread:

Here are some bits pieces from Wikipedia:

Wikipedia wrote:

First-wave feminism was a period of activity during the 19th century and early twentieth century. In the UK and US, it focused on the promotion of equal contract, marriage, parenting, and property rights for women.

Second-wave feminism is a feminist movement beginning in the early 1960s and continuing to the present; as such, it coexists with third-wave feminism. Second-wave feminism is largely concerned with issues of equality beyond suffrage, such as ending gender discrimination.

Second-wave feminists see women's cultural and political inequalities as inextricably linked and encourage women to understand aspects of their personal lives as deeply politicized and as reflecting sexist power structures. The feminist activist and author Carol Hanisch coined the slogan "The Personal is Political", which became synonymous with the second wave.

In the early 1990s in the USA, third-wave feminism began as a response to perceived failures of the second wave and to the backlash against initiatives and movements created by the second wave. Third-wave feminism distinguished itself from the second wave around issues of sexuality, challenging female heterosexuality and celebrating sexuality as a means of female empowerment. Third-wave feminism also seeks to challenge or avoid what it deems the second wave's essentialist definitions of femininity, which, they argue, over-emphasize the experiences of upper middle-class white women. Third-wave feminists often focus on "micro-politics" and challenge the second wave's paradigm as to what is, or is not, good for women, and tend to use a post-structuralist interpretation of gender and sexuality.

There are also a variety of ideologies within feminism that are useful to know about, and developed and changed within those waves.

Wikipedia wrote:

Liberal feminism seeks individualistic equality of men and women through political and legal reform without altering the structure of society.

Radical feminism considers the male-controlled capitalist hierarchy as the defining feature of women's oppression and the total uprooting and reconstruction of society as necessary.

Conservative feminism is conservative relative to the society in which it resides.

Libertarian feminism conceives of people as self-owners and therefore as entitled to freedom from coercive interference.

Separatist feminism does not support heterosexual relationships. Lesbian feminism is thus closely related. Other feminists criticize separatist feminism as sexist.

Ecofeminists see men's control of land as responsible for the oppression of women and destruction of the natural environment; ecofeminism has been criticised for focusing too much on a mystical connection between women and nature.

Marxist feminism argues that capitalism is the root cause of women's oppression, and that discrimination against women in domestic life and employment is an effect of capitalist ideologies.

Socialist feminism distinguishes itself from Marxist feminism by arguing that women's liberation can only be achieved by working to end both the economic and cultural sources of women's oppression.

Anarcha-feminists believe that class struggle and anarchy against the state require struggling against patriarchy, which comes from involuntary hierarchy.

Womanism emerged after early feminist movements were largely white and middle-class.

Postcolonial feminists argue that colonial oppression and Western feminism marginalized postcolonial women but did not turn them passive or voiceless.

Third-world feminism and Indigenous feminism are closely related to postcolonial feminism.

Post-structural feminism draws on the philosophies of post-structuralism and deconstruction in order to argue that the concept of gender is created socially and culturally through discourse.

Riot grrls took an anti-corporate stance of self-sufficiency and self-reliance. Riot grrrl's emphasis on universal female identity and separatism often appears more closely allied with second-wave feminism than with the third wave.

Lipstick feminism is a cultural feminist movement that attempts to respond to the backlash of second-wave radical feminism of the 1960s and 1970s by reclaiming symbols of "feminine" identity such as make-up, suggestive clothing and having a sexual allure as valid and empowering personal choices.

I'll add transfeminism to the mix, which is a movement informed by transgender experiences towards recognizing that gender is not as simple as men and women, and affirming that how we interact with gender is a choice and not a given. It sees the idea that gender is purely a social construct as simplistic, although the ways we interact with and understand gender are certainly socially constructed.

And of course, individual people are individual and can have all sorts of mixtures of ideas. I know radical transfeminists. I know Marxist radical feminists. I know libertarian lipstick feminists. etc.

As you can imagine, there are plenty of other attitudes and ideologies floating around as well, and a sense that we're beyond the third wave of feminism but uncertainty about what that means.

Also note the word "intersectional" in particular. This was coined by Black Feminist Kimberlé Crenshaw, who put forward the idea that intersections between different axes of marginalization combine in ways greater than the sum of their parts. That is: the situation of Black women may not be understood by understanding sexism and understanding racism separately. There are aspects of what Black women face that are unique to them. (Today, that intersection is often called "misogynoir", a portmanteau of misogyny and the word "noir" for the color black.)

Some more words that often come up:

privilege

This does not mean "born with a silver spoon in your mouth". It refers to being in the advantageous position in some axis of marginalization. This is often difficult for the privileged person to perceive, because many advantages of privilege amount to being treated like a human being while others are treated as less. For example: a woman will be judged as "bossy" or "abrasive" for speaking up in the workplace, while a man in the same position speaking the same way will have the privilege of being treated as "forceful" and "no-holds-barred" for speaking up even more strongly. Another example: a white person may be treated with suspicion in an upscale store if they are poorly dressed (although in the age of Silicon Valley, this is no certainty), but a Black person is likely to be treated as a potential shoplifter even if they are dressed impeccably.

See also this news story, where:

Story wrote:

Kamilah Brock says the New York City police sent her to a mental hospital for a hellish eight days, where she was forcefully injected with powerful drugs, essentially because they couldn’t believe a black woman owned a BMW.

marginalization

A marginalized person is a person who is treated as less significant and "pushed to the margins". This is the opposite side of privilege. Women are discouraged from leadership positions in businesses because they have to keep to the margins to avoid being picked out as trouble-makers. People of color are discouraged from going to the same shops and neighborhoods as white people because they'll be treated as suspicious outsiders. Transgender people will avoid medical providers even when suffering from dangerous conditions because of fears of being treated as a curiosity rather than as a patient.

Being marginalized means not being able to take part in society to the same degree as those with privilege. White people can participate more than Black people. Men can participate more than women. Straight people can participate more than gay people. Both straight and gay people can participate more than bi people sometimes. (Really!) And so on.

People who are marginalized have to constantly prove themselves in different ways, and even having proved themselves continue to be required to do so. Privileged people are assumed to belong.

oppressor/oppressed

This is a different way to talk about privilege and marginalization, somewhat more common in second wave feminism than later feminism. The implication is the same, although the language is stronger. It may seem like these words are overstating the case--but we can see in recent cases of police treatment of Black people that they may not be as far off the mark as we would like to believe.

sex-positive

The attitude that sex should be a thing that can be celebrated, and doesn't need to be treated as a vehicle of oppression. This is connected with other third-wave ideas in reclaiming things associated with femininity instead of rejecting them. Making them about women empowering themselves, rather than about women submitting themselves to the will of men. A sex-negative attitude towards makeup would be that it's done for men's benefit to look more attractive for them. A sex-positive attitude would be that it is a form of self-expression that a woman can flaunt for no reason other than to feel good about herself.

SWERF/TERF

"Sex-worker exclusionary radical feminist" and "trans exclusionary radical feminist". People often have these views at the same time, although it's certainly not universal.

TERFs often hold to some radical feminist ideas put forward in the 1970s that trans women are men altered through the medical-industrial complex to be invaders into the society of women. They usually ignore the fact that trans men exist (instead preferring to believe that they're still women, albeit very butch), and if forced to confront the fact that trans men see themselves as men will see them as deluded.

SWERFs hold to the idea that sex work is always oppressive, and never something that a person can choose to do themselves. They tend to show up in places where work is being done to change the law to decrease the "evils of prostitution". They almost always ignore the words of sex workers who decry their approaches as more destructive than what they're trying to cure. Sex-work positive feminists generally believe that sex work is a job that people choose to do, and which prohibition does not eliminate, and as such believe that legalizing sex work in order to provide safer working conditions (and allow sex workers to go to the police when they are abused, for example) is the right way to end these evils.

Not all sex-worker exclusionary feminists are radical feminists (for example, see white feminism just below.)

white feminism

This refers specifically to a sort of attitude that is often seen among prominent women (usually white, but also some women of color). It is somewhat reminiscent of first-wave feminism in that it has a sense of "the fight has been won", and ignores the fact that people in different situations have it worse off. A cardinal example would be Sheryl Sandberg's "Lean In", which is criticized as basically just saying that "all women have to do is work harder to be recognized, but we can do it!! This ignores the fact that Sandberg had tremendous advantages that allowed her to do this, which are not available to women in different situations.

White feminism is generally dismissive of the issues of women of color, queer women, and sex workers.

Men and women are different, and always will be! Can feminism accomplish anything?

There are some branches of feminism that believe that men and women will never truly be equal until all differences between men and women are stamped out. Fortunately, that's kind of a fringe point of view.

[em]Of course[/em] men and women are different. Physically, in terms of the effects of hormones on their bodies while developing in the womb and throughout their lives. Possibly mentally and emotionally based on the influence of hormones on the brain. Socially in terms of commonly preferred social roles, ambitions, interactions with others, fashions. There are a lot of ways that men and women are different.

But it's important to note a few things: First, [em]individual people are all different[/em]. Second, [em]different doesn't necessarily mean worse[/em]. And third, [em]some of these differences are choices[/em].

It is not prejudice, when you have two candidates for a task, to evaluate the two candidates on the basis of their actual ability to perform the task and to then pick the one who can do it better. It [em]is[/em] prejudice to look at the two candidates and make unjustified assumptions about their actual ability to perform the task, and then pick the one who you assume can do it better.

Women do, on average, have less muscle mass and bone density than men. However, the average is just the average. Actual individual women and men have a great variety of physicality, and there's a ton of overlap. So if you take an individual man and an individual woman, and you want to know which one is actually better at lifting heavy things, you need to evaluate those two individuals--not the averages.

There are also many many places in our world where men and women are treated differently, based purely on diffent assumptions about how one or the other "should" act. For example, the Guardian has a reaction piece pointing out how a Politico Op-Ed was sexist--not because it asserted that Jill Abramson is a bad editor because she's a woman, but because it criticized aspects of her leadership style that would be lauded in a male editor.

Similarly, in the famous case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the issue was prejudicial treatment of a woman based on her failure to conform to gender stereotypes. Behavior that would have been accepted in a man was instead criticized in a woman. If it's acceptable for some people to choose to behave a certain way, it's unreasonable to demand that others not make the same choices simply because of their gender (or ethnicity, or so on.)

And yes, the same sort of thing happens to men who act in a more typically feminine manner, and that's also a feminist issue.

In short: Equality doesn't mean stamping out differences. It's not about physical equality. It's about equality in social, economic, and political [em]treatment[/em]. It's not about demanding that you ignore the very real differences, it's about demanding that the differences actually exist rather than being assumed into being.

Why are people so sensitive about rape jokes? Why is it any different from joking about other sensitive subjects?

...

Why don't women just ignore the people harassing them, or just tell them to stop?

...

(Note for later linkage: Shut Up or Get Out: PA City Punishes Domestic Violence Victims Who Call the Police.)

Why wear a sexy costume if you don't want the attention and comments?

...

What's wrong with sexy costumes? Men are portrayed in ways that are just as unrealistic.

...

I read a story about a woman who was harassed / assaulted / etc. after wearing sexy clothes / flirting with a guy / getting drunk / walking alone at night / etc. I get that it's terrible, but she really should've been more careful. Why is everybody staring at me now?

...

(Notes for possible later linkage regarding "slut-shaming" which often follows on from "victim-blaming", although maybe it deserves its own heading somehow: The shame of slut-shaming, I Was Detained and Interrogated at the Border for Carrying Condoms.)

There are games like Metroid, Portal, etc. with female protagonists. Why not just play those?

...

That was a lot of work. Thanks.

Thanks Hypatian, I really wanted to see this topic continue, but since I couldn't use the quote function to get the base encoding for the FAQ, I was reluctant to restart the thread without that resource.

The FAQ really needs to be filled in more some day. When did I write that with the promise of adding more?

I love the hero(ine) image!

Today's entry in the "well, hey, my field of work is entirely f*cked up" sweepstakes:

Leaked Apple emails reveal employees' complaints about sexist, toxic work environment
(Melanie Ehrenkranz, Mic.com, 2016-09-14)

Disney's Jasmine has had a bit of a costume upgrade! ...possibly because of complaints about the old one or possibly because the actresses were being harassed with catcalls constantly. Either way, "the internet" is responding with it's usual reasonable calmness. (e.g: "They'll be putting her in a Burka next...etc, etc).

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CriwJBEUkAAm4om.jpg)

I think it looks good! Far less like a cheap Amazon-bought Halloween costume like the one on the left.

To clarify, men were constantly catcalling the actresses (an act of degradation) ... as a response, people are complaining that she's being "put into a burqa" (an article of clothing the west generally tends to view as degrading to women)... and their complaint is that Disney is degrading the women by putting them into a costume that will hopefully result in fewer degrading catcalls against the actresses. Does that about sum it up?

If so, this is the only response to the people complaining now (and, of course, doing so using a very base image of Islam):
IMAGE(https://media.giphy.com/media/Ow59c0pwTPruU/giphy.gif)

There were various reasons put forward as to why the costume change, some people think it's because they got complaints about the amount of skin showing. Others say it's because 'Jasmine' would get a lot of catcalling and harassment (which seems pretty believable to me to be honest). Nothing officially confirmed afaik ( I think the official Disney stance is that the costume change was already in the works anyway so this would have happened regardless).

If nothing else it makes the position easier to cast since tattoos seem to be more and more popular with the kids these days. And I agree, pyxistyx, the costume looks better. Though that could also be the lighting.

pyxistyx wrote:

Disney's Jasmine has had a bit of a costume upgrade! ...possibly because of complaints about the old one or possibly because the actresses were being harassed with catcalls constantly. Either way, "the internet" is responding with it's usual reasonable calmness. (e.g: "They'll be putting her in a Burka next...etc, etc).

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CriwJBEUkAAm4om.jpg)

I think it looks good! Far less like a cheap Amazon-bought Halloween costume like the one on the left.

I love the way that Disney keeps quietly improving. It's like their 1970's-80's renaissance, but much faster. Instead of having the innate senses of self, love, and diversity they were born with crushed under the boots of culture, "kids these days" are now having those things reinforced by a massive Disney machine which keeps turning more firmly toward actual, not apparent, benevolence.

I suppose it's easier than having Jasmine carry this sign around all day (Swap "Warner Bros" for "Disney")

IMAGE(http://img.cinemablend.com/cb/1/4/d/a/d/f/14dadff8a5f07424ed952210dafdeea3b702a99125c102353af9756a0dd2817c.jpg)

Thanks for creating a new thread, Hyp.

pyxistyx wrote:

Disney's Jasmine has had a bit of a costume upgrade!

What?! How dare they swap one (possibly?) culturally appropriate costume for another culturally appropriate costume! Those monsters!!

Just recently watched this video on feminist backlash specifically on youtube. I have been harassed in a similar manner on facebook and these people are scary.

While waiting for Blair Witch to start, I was quite surprised to see - instead of the usual endless parade of car adverts - a couple of bodyform ad's for tampons and one for makeup (involving a wide array of different women, and a man, of various shapes and skin tones). I guess they figure there must be a high number of women that go to watch horror films?

In any event - this is one of the Bodyform ads that played. Which is pretty badass, actually.

Quite a change from the old "rollerskates and leotard" stuff they used to produce!

UK adverts seem to be more diverse than US ones, even though the US has the more diverse population.

Neat. Never thought I'd hear a Tribe Called Red song in a commercial.

Onee the bracelet that lets your BFF know that the guy you're talking to wants to murder you.

I love this idea, but in a world where the smartwatch exists I can't understand the point. I know I can use my pebble to quickly send a text to ANYONE and not just one person.

Thoughts?

pyxistyx wrote:

While waiting for Blair Witch to start, I was quite surprised to see - instead of the usual endless parade of car adverts - a couple of bodyform ad's for tampons and one for makeup (involving a wide array of different women, and a man, of various shapes and skin tones). I guess they figure there must be a high number of women that go to watch horror films?

In any event - this is one of the Bodyform ads that played. Which is pretty badass, actually.

Quite a change from the old "rollerskates and leotard" stuff they used to produce!

My experience from online dating? A lot of women love horror movies and consider guys who don't enjoy them to be undateable. I don't know why this is, particularly, but it is one of those things I've found fascinating since putting myself back out there. (For reference, I hate horror movies, for me, they're either boring, just gross by amping the violence, and frequently very icky to watch when it's so frequently women dying instead of men.)

Demosthenes wrote:

My experience from online dating? A lot of women love horror movies and consider guys who don't enjoy them to be undateable. I don't know why this is, particularly, but it is one of those things I've found fascinating since putting myself back out there.

You gotta try a different dating site than GothicMatch, man.

OG_slinger wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

My experience from online dating? A lot of women love horror movies and consider guys who don't enjoy them to be undateable. I don't know why this is, particularly, but it is one of those things I've found fascinating since putting myself back out there.

You gotta try a different dating site than GothicMatch, man. :-)

o.O

Ahem.

Excuse me, I need to go write up a profile.

Demosthenes wrote:

My experience from online dating? A lot of women love horror movies and consider guys who don't enjoy them to be undateable. I don't know why this is, particularly, but it is one of those things I've found fascinating since putting myself back out there.

Weird. Yellek doesn't like horror movies that much. We do have a female friend who really likes them though and started inviting her over for horror movie nights.

Demosthenes wrote:

(For reference, I hate horror movies, for me, they're either boring, just gross by amping the violence, and frequently very icky to watch when it's so frequently women dying instead of men.)

The worst thing to happen to horror movies was the over-proliferation of slasher flicks and torture porn. Especially the latter.

Sku Boi wrote:

Onee the bracelet that lets your BFF know that the guy you're talking to wants to murder you.

I love this idea, but in a world where the smartwatch exists I can't understand the point. I know I can use my pebble to quickly send a text to ANYONE and not just one person.

Thoughts?

This idea seems ridiculous. There are too many hoops you have to jump through in order for it to be effective.

A couple of tweets to share today:

BREAKING NEWS: Men very upset that #WonderWoman is not straight, have been very bad at reading subtext for 75 years.

and more seriously (the linked article is entitled "Why Women in Tech Might Consider Just Using Their Initials Online"):

@hels wrote:

I would suggest you do some things, too, John Greathouse http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2016/09...
IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cte6iUUWAAEnq1C.jpg)

Yeeeesh.

Could you explain to me what's so bad about that John Greathouse article? Because I'm failing to comprehend why a bunch of online feminists are angry at someone for admitting that the tech industry is sexist?

I'm going to guess, which I realize is dangerous, but it seems to me that, if the reality you want is without gender bias, having a man come in and present a work around isn't what you want to see.

I clicked on the tweet (thanks for linking it Hyp) and that woman doesn't like the article because it's putting the burden on women and minorities to hide who they are in order to get hired/raise money. She's right in that, the people making the biased decisions are the ones at fault. But if that bias already exists (even unconsciously), what's wrong with circumventing that?

That's my take on it, anyway. I'm not exactly in a demographic that understands institutional bias so grain of salt for all of the above.

kuddles wrote:

Could you explain to me what's so bad about that John Greathouse article? Because I'm failing to comprehend why a bunch of online feminists are angry at someone for admitting that the tech industry is sexist?

I think I get what you mean, but it sounds to me like he's victim blaming. Furthermore, how does his response solve the problem? Male entrepreneurs will still use their names and photos. And don't they still have to show up present their idea at some point?

Why not write an article about how sexist the industry is that admonishes those who perpetuate it, with actionable advice for how to overcome one's own subconscious biases?

Chairman_Mao wrote:
kuddles wrote:

Could you explain to me what's so bad about that John Greathouse article? Because I'm failing to comprehend why a bunch of online feminists are angry at someone for admitting that the tech industry is sexist?

I think I get what you mean, but it sounds to me like he's victim blaming. Furthermore, how does his response solve the problem? Male entrepreneurs will still use their names and photos. And don't they still have to show up present their idea at some point?

Why not write an article about how sexist the industry is that admonishes those who perpetuate it, with actionable advice for how to overcome one's own subconscious biases?

Honestly, I think it needs to be both.
How do you make the world the way you want it to be and how do you handle the current state of the world?
Writing the article you suggest probably won't help many of the female or PoC entrepreneurs that are right now raising capital or whatever, but may help those down the road.

That's kind of what I was getting from it. He probably was tasked with writing an article directed to women being in the tech industry, and he wrote his advice honestly. He doesn't seem to be in a position where he can break systematic barriers.

It's kind of an issue I have had with certain contingents of the left for a while. We can agree that the burden should not be on the person being unfairly treated, and we can work towards ways of changing that on the top level, but if you are just an individual trying to get ahead in life while at the bottom, giving advice on how to deal with it shouldn't leave people fuming.

It's like whenever some organization or government department has some kind of poster or brochure telling women how to protect themselves when being out at night alone, all I see online is a lot of mean-spirited attacks and anger directed at the organization for creating it. "How about you tell men to not be creepos and rapists?" is a valid point to be made overall, and something that should be done as well, but it doesn't aid the woman in a major city alone today, in our world, and discouraging her access to that information because of how unfair that is to her doesn't seem helpful.

What I'm saying is that there is a lot of stupidity and ridiculousness about the article he wrote, but I feel attacking John Greathouse for writing it is misguided.

So. There are a number of reasons that article is repugnant.

One is the presumption that women haven't already known this for ages and need a man to explain it to us. Because seriously, we have. The tactic of concealing our womanhood in order to gain an advantage is well known. Typically this involves hiding ourselves away and using our initials or going by a name more typical of men.

The only people likely to be surprised at this tactic are white cis men.

More important is that this is absolutely horrible. "In order to even get in the door, you should be prepared to hide who you are", which is effectively lying about who you are. That is hideous. It's no better than telling gay people "if you want to get a job and not be treated as anathema, you'll just have to make sure nobody ever knows that you are gay." Worse than that, this is not just about concealing an intrinsic aspect of yourself (although that is more than awful enough), it's about concealing your identity. Who you are. In order to get ahead you must not let people know who it is getting ahead.

Another issue is that while these tactics may help you get through the door, they won't help you once you're through it, and they may even hurt. (Unless you want to go into really dangerous territory and conceal your gender even in person—more about that later.) You're going to answer the phone for an interview or log in to a video call or walk into a room and everyone who is evaluating you now suddenly has to completely revamp their mental image of you. For some people that will just be jarring. With others, it will create active hostility towards the person who "tricked" them.

Finally (for this bit), I'll note that this is yet another case of offloading the labor of dealing with prejudice onto the backs of the marginalized. This is yet another way to say "if you're not getting ahead, you just have to work harder", ignoring the fact that having to work harder than men for the same reward is exactly the problem.

So... does this tactic work? Yes, it can work. Women already knew that. People of color already knew that about concealing names considered "black".

Is it a good idea to use this tactic? That's a lot harder to answer. There is a toll that your psyche takes when you feel the need to hide who you are. There are additional dangers to having your gender (or race) be a surprise to people. Like I've said a number of times: this tactic is not particularly new. The fact that it is rarely used should probably tell you something about how people have weighed the costs and the benefits.

Is it appropriate for a man to post an article with the idea that "gosh, why haven't women ever thought to do this?" and positioned as an answer for dealing with some amount of sexism? f*ck no. It's condescending. It's a horrible thing to suggest that people do. And it encourages people to think that discriminatory hiring and business practices can be solved if the marginalized just make some extra common-sense effort. It is horrible.

If implicit bias on the basis of applicants' names and photos are problems, then what the industry ought to be doing is instituting practices that conceal that information for as long as possible during evaluation. The people doing the hiring need to be making this extra effort, and not off-loading it on the people trying to be hired who are already fighting with plenty of bullsh*t.

Finally, I wanted to share some words from the point of view of a trans woman friend of mine, which all of the other trans people I've spoken to agree with. We have a bit of experience with hiding things from the world around us in order to survive, and with the stress that creates. We also have a bit of experience with what happens when you walk into a room and all of somebody's assumptions about what you look and sound like based on your name suddenly fall apart.

Here's the text of the tweets:

@lindseybieda wrote:

http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2016/09...
? I hid my gender for years online but maybe the tech industry just needs to f*cking grow up?

LRT: When I transitioned and chose to have a public personality in tech, it was a conscious decision to do it all under my real name. Disguising my identity is the biggest possible NOPE that I can think of. No way, never again.

Tech man: "Have you ever tried pretending to be a man?"

Me, a trans woman: "YEAH. FOR 30 GODDAMN YEARS."

{... later ...}

I have some more things to say about that article by @johngreathouse about women not using their name and appearing in photos.

What you should do is go find a trans woman trying to break into tech and follow her. And watch the cascade of heartbreaking rejections.

Then I dare you to tell her to her face that maybe she should try going by a male name. Maybe even her dead name. Tell her that she should remove herself from company photos. That she doesn't look right and could scare away money.

You'll never get a stronger look of sheer disdain.

Trans women everywhere are being rejected for jobs that our cis male peers are being hired for due to their "potential." And if you think that maybe that adds some feeling of regret about transition, well guess what, you're exactly right. So saying "meh, just ignore your name and call out sick on photo day" is one of the most dangerous kinds of advice you can give.

This literally kills us.

And finally, have you ever asked a trans woman about her name? Holy sh*t we can't shut up about our names. How dare you suggest we hide them

On that last: names are important to people. To tell someone to conceal their name is to tell them that they should give up credit for their work. That they should be a non-entity. That they should fade into the background and not be seen. That while their work may be acceptable, they are not acceptable.

Telling people to hide their face for fear of offending those in power is never okay.

Pages