This is something I’ve been meaning to talk about for a while, but as others have already kick-started the discussion, I’m going to do something I rarely do and actually blog about something that everyone else is blogging about. (By which I mean, is it just me or does anyone else get fed up with seeing basically the same article being regurgitated all over the blogosphere? And also, is it just me, or do other people find it weird that so many bloggers respond to other people’s work on their own blogs rather than taking part in the discussion thread on the original piece……and yes, I realise I’m about to do exactly that myself, but it’s easier to respond in one place here than to comment on every other blog that’s now discussing this subject)
And now I’ve just realised I’ve written a whole paragraph without even giving a clue as to what I’m actually wittering on about!
Ahem. It’s the debate about anonymity, and what if any are the differences between those of us who blog using our real names, and those who blog using pseudonyms.
First off I’ve got to say I found the title of Heart’s piece slightly offensive, in that Real Life Activism V Anonymous Internet Writing implies that those who write anonymously can’t also be real life activists, an assertion which from my own experience, and from my real-life knowledge of plenty of anonymous Internet writers is quite patently untrue. I think the title and the piece that follows also sets up a false hierarchy among bloggers, implying that those of us who use our real names are somehow better or more worthy or braver than those who write anonymously, whereas I’d contend that the risks we’re taking may be different, but ultimately we’re all taking risks of some sort, and one doesn’t necessarily trump the other.
For anyone who doesn’t know my backstory, up until July 2007 I was an anonymous commenter on the Internet, contributing mainly to the Guardian’s Comment is Free (aka CiF) site and using the pseudonym Mswoman, which I still use for my below the line contributions. Then one day I received an email from the editor of the site, saying she’d been impressed with my writing/comments, and asking if I’d like to submit an article. So I did. CiF liked it, and from there my long-dreamed of career as a writer was launched.
But there was just one hitch.
In order to publish my piece, the deal was that I gave up my anonymous identity, and wrote for CiF under my real name. Oh yes, and provide them with a photo of myself.
Looking back, if I’d had a bit more nous about me I’d have made a name up. Obviously CiF didn’t want me using an off-the-wall pseudonym like Mswoman, but I could have probably got away with a pen name, even a small change like substituting Ellis for Elliott for instance. But to be honest the possibility of doing that didn’t even cross my mind at the time. I did think long and hard about whether I was prepared to give up my anonymity, and came close to deciding it wasn’t worth the hassle; that the Guardian were unlikely to ask me for more pieces, and that if that was the case I was giving away Mswoman’s identity for nothing. But in the end the excitement of being published by a major site like CiF overrode all those considerations, and I acquiesced.
But it is something that still bothers me from time to time. So for example when I started this blog last year I began by posting on it as Mswoman, but then I decided that that was pointless because everyone already knew who I was from CiF, so I switched back to using my real name.
But do I think I face more risks now that I’m not anonymous? Or do I think that blogging under my real name means I’m a braver person than someone who uses a screen handle?
No, not particularly.
As anyone who’s been following the story about the shameful exposure by the Times of the blogger NightJack will be aware, anonymous bloggers run the risk of having their identities exposed anyway. It happened to Zoe Margolis, and it’s happened to others: there are some nasty spiteful people out there, and if someone is determined enough to find out who you are they will. Bloggers all give little clues away in their writing, like where they live, the kinds of jobs they do and so on, and it doesn’t take much for someone with a grudge and some time on their hands to piece all of that together. And when and if that does happen, as in NightJack’s case, there can be huge implications for that person’s career and sometimes even their personal life.
It’s a risk that I, and others who already blog under their real names, don’t have to worry about. And I think we’re lucky, because that’s one worry I’d hate to have hanging over me.
The big downside for me about having to use my real name is concerns about protecting my family. A couple of weeks ago on CiF, a commenter who had been looking at this site opined that I was obviously an unnatural uncaring bint (or words to that effect), because I never mention my kids. Well actually I do, although not often I’ll grant you. But if I don’t blog much about them there’s a reason for that: the same reason that you will never find any mention from me online of my children’s names. Which is that I signed up for this gig: they didn’t. I chose to put myself out there for anyone and everyone to hurl abuse at or whatever; my children did not. And I respect their right to privacy, and their right to live their own lives without Internet or real life trolls associating them with me and giving them crap for it.
And yes, blogging and writing under my real name has put some restrictions on me: I have to think really carefully about some of the things I’m prepared to reveal about my own life experiences for example, not because I want to “curry favour” with anyone, but because there are some conversations I haven’t had yet with the people who matter to me, and I would rather have those conversations before revealing all on the Internet: some of that might take time.
And there are certain places, or at least events, that I can no longer turn up to on my own and know with absolute certainty that I’ll be safe at. Certain public meetings for example, or demonstrations. Nowadays I either go along to these things with a group of friends, or I just don’t go at all, whereas before I could blend comfortably into the walls or the crowd, safe in the knowledge that people either didn’t have a clue or they didn’t give a flying fuck who I was.
The scariest thing that’s happened since being “out”?
This was actually just before CiF and just before writing-on-the-Internet-using-my-real-name.
I did an interview for the BBC about abortion. I was filmed sitting in my back garden talking about the abortion I’d had, and about the need for better services for women seeking abortions. I missed it when it was aired, but I understand it went out on News 24 during a lunchtime bulletin.
Anyway, a couple of weeks later I was coming out of my workplace when I was stopped by a guy with a big old wooden crucifix dangling from his neck:
“I saw you on the BBC” he said
“Hmmm”
“You were talking about abortion”
“Hmmmm”
And then he gave me a lecture about how god was watching me and knew everything about me.
I didn’t argue with him, I didn’t tell him to fuck off and mind his own business: I was on my own and scared shitless to be frank. But I did ask him one question that was bugging me: “Did you just recognise me as I came out the door, or did you recognise me when you saw me on the news and know that I worked here?”
He said he recognised me as soon as he saw me on the telly.
And the question I didn’t ask, because I probably couldn’t have dealt with the answer was: “So did you come here today specifically to wait for me, or was it just coincidence that our paths crossed?”
Instead I thanked him (yes thanked him!) for his concerns about my spiritual well being, and hightailed it out of there as fast as I could.
But incidents like that can happen to anyone who’s prepared to stand up and speak out about the things they believe in, and I don’t think it matters what name they’re using when they do it.
As Ren points out, the risk of being recognised and of having to deal with hostility or worse from complete strangers is just as real for those who write using established net handles as it for those of us using our real names. I don’t blame anyone for not wanting to reveal their identity online: I understand perfectly the reasons why some people can’t or don’t want to reveal who they are, and I certainly don’t think that I’m a better person or a more righteous blogger just because I no longer write under cover.
Too Much To Say For Myself 
Fab post!
Anonymity can provide the kind of protection that being identified can’t. If people can’t identify you, then at least you don’t have to worry about people waiting to confront you outside your workplace, because they disagree with what you have written/said.
But then, in order to secure a big writing opportunity, something has to give. Kind of puts you under a magnifying glass. It’s horrible how you have to think about where you go and who with, now your name and photo is out there.
You’re a fab writer though, I was a fan of Mswoman also. Great post. 🙂
I do worry about you Cath, TBH because of how open you’ve been and because there a lot of unsane people out there.
Can I say one thing vis a vis Heart’s post. Yes she does take risks, I realise that. However if you live alone (as I do) and are already paranoidly security conscious (having been burgled and having some not very pleasant neighbours, one of whom kept posting anonymous notes through my door) you’re unlikely to want to invite mad stalkers round. Which is why I’m VERY security conscious on t’internetz, because believe me Cath, I know I could find the personal details of most folks on the internetz very easily.
BTW the last link isn’t to Ren.
Ooops, thanks Polly, fixed now.
Oh and sorry to have to say this BUT
is it just me, or do other people find it weird that so many bloggers respond to other people’s work on their own blogs rather than taking part in the discussion thread on the original piece
Some of us are forced to, since the blogs in question won’t publish our comments.
(The F word
http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2008/08/an_open_letter_2
and others too numerous to mention)
Sorry Cath, I’m shit stirring, but… delete this if you want. I’ll stick another link in so it goes into mod.
http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2009/06/tips_for_wired
Yeah, I realised that would be one of the responses after I’d posted Polly. I’m starting to think the whole situation’s getting slightly out of hand.
I’ll probably get a load of stick for linking to Ren, or for still liking Twisty/Jill, or for still talking to you after you allegedly committed the crime of the century and got thrown out of the so-called sisterhood, but to be honest, life’s too fucking short to start pissing about playing stupid games.
I read everyone I can who writes about the subjects I’m interested in on the net, some of whom, as a feminist, I’m apparently not supposed to read. And I’ll comment on those sites too, if the post inspires me enough.
Perhaps someone could draw us all up a set of rules, so we all know where we stand and what we’re allowed to/not allowed to say, who we can link to/not link to, and so on.
Or maybe, and this is a revolutionary idea, we can make all those decisions for ourselves, and if others don’t like it, they don’t have to agree with us or even read us. Simple as that.
‘Cos you know, women are still getting raped, women are still dying, women still face massive inequalities the world over, and personally I think raising awareness of, and trying to do something about those things comes a lot lot higher of the list of things-we-should-be-doing-something-about than worrying about who said what about who and who used a naughty anti-feminist word on the Internet.
But that’s just my opinion.
Crucifix man story is vaguely scary.
FWIW (not v much), I think you made the right call in using your real name for CiF. My efforts at semi-anonymous blogging ended disastrously, as it meant I didn’t think about the impact it could have in the real world. I’ve not had any problems (touch would) with the last few years of full-real-name blogging…
Or maybe, and this is a revolutionary idea, we can make all those decisions for ourselves, and if others don’t like it, they don’t have to agree with us or even read us. Simple as that.
You know that would never catch on.
But you do realise you’ll be on the black list now don’t you, for linking to rad fem enemy no 1?
Hi Cath
Interesting and thoughtful as usual.
Just came across from CiF to thank you for the defiant, inspiring article about the ongoing struggle against women being bought and sold. I see it’s already on 7 pages and just reading the first page plus recs told me that it’d be the usual ‘you just hate men’ fest, combined with the endearing tactic of claiming it’s feminists that want to oppress women (see also ‘left-wingers are teh REAL fascists’).
I see you mention Twisty/Jill – is this the Cuntalinagate thing? I am also interested to know what PollyStyrene’s ‘crime’ was (I have a lot of respect for her and am curious to know what she could have done that was so terrible). I understand if you don’t want to bring it all up again, or even if you just think i should go find out myself, but I assure you I have followed the links in the article and comments and am just as lost as before.
Thanks.
It was another bad word finisterre. *contaminated *And then it all got too Monty Python for words.
Find out here.
http://pollystyrene.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/actor-has-good-language-skills-less-strong-on-logic/
(note: I know I say I don’t ban anyone, but I will delete CiF MRA’s if I want to).
touch *would*? goddamn free wine lunchtime buffets, apologies
Oh sorry, and the F word thing referred to in my comment was that one of the articles in the first link identifiably dissed me and then the post author refused to publish my comments in reply (and those of others disagreeing with her) The second link is completely irrelevant, I just stuck it in to make the comment go into mod in case Cath didn’t want to publish it.
I’m starting to think there are more of us radfem-expats now than actual radfems. 😉
My real name is ‘out’ too… before I realised the safety issues it was too late to take it back. It’s pretty much indelibly tied to my ordinary screen name (ghostlove) these days too, and that kind of frightens me.
I feel a bit guilty too because my son’s name is ‘out’ but again, there’s not much I could do to ‘take it back’ now.
It is important to stress that it seemed( last time I checked) thatthe ‘sisterhood’ consisted of about six people.
So I think I’ll survive my ‘banishment’ and so will you Cath most probably. Certainly not nearly as traumatic as trying to get a new phone from Virgin mobile.
Cath (and everyone), one of the points I hoped to make in my post but actually ended up making in comments was that some of us don’t really have a choice so far as being anonymous on the ‘net. (Other than the choice not to write about our lives at all, which, for a feminist writer, is not really an option.) Being in that situation informs everything we write– even if we did use an alias, many people would know who we were. So we can’t. We don’t have that option.
I don’t think using/not using an alias makes anyone a better/worse feminist or creates any hierarchy. I just think, again, that it informs our writing,what we do and say online. There are some things I can’t safely say because I write under my own name (and never have been able to say *except* for a very brief period 10 years ago when I was brand new to the feminist internet). I could safely say those things if I were writing under a screen name and were not known. I think this is important and colors not only what those of us who write under our own names say, but how people perceive what we write. They know we are writing under our own names. They know we weren’t somebody else some other time. I know the difference because of that very brief period when I could write incognito 10 years ago. Whoooppeeee! Nobody knows who I am, I can say whatever I want! That didn’t last very long at all, it couldn’t have. These days, the internet has become small. Not many who blog will be able to hold on to their anonymity for long.
The women at Arooo have both used other screen names before pre-this-version-of-Arooo, as bloggers. They wrote before under other incarnations of themselves iow. Why would they or anyone do that? One reason is, you can effectively obscure your past internet behaviors and words that way, make them invisible (sort of, until people figure it out and even then you can deny it) and can essentially lie about who you were and what you said and did the last time around. You recreate the “whooppeee, I can say anything I want without being accountable for the damage I did before or the problems I caused before” feeling. You erase history. For a while. But that is creepy from the standpoint of community, fragile as “community” might be on the internet. There are women there interacting with the Arooo women who clearly do not realize they’ve interacted with them in the past under different screen names. What’s so bizarre is, there is all of this sturm and drang over there around others’ dishonesty despite this very central, basic and current dishonesty displayed there.
These shenanigans and this posturing as someone new is impossible for anyone who writes under her real name. We can’t erase our history. We can’t erase what we said and did in the past. We can’t erase who we are. This doesn’t make us “better” but it makes what we write and do online different. That was my point.
Ahhh, ok, it’s all starting to make sense now. Thanks for the clarification Heart.
Yes, I agree with this completely.
Polly
Is that you or Ren? It’s all so confusing!
Finisterre
Oh yes. Now don’t get me wrong, it’s a word I abhor, with a vengeance, but at the same time I think the reaction to Twisty’s decision to use it was far in excess of anything she deserved.
Interestingly at the same time as that whole thing kicked off, I was asked by some friends if I’d be willing to take part in a performance of the Vagina Monologues sometime next year. I said yes, then they all agreed (spurred on by a friend who’s fully aware of my aversion to the word!) that I should do the c**t monologue. You know the one? Where the speaker gets the whole audience chanting the sodding word.
Now I’m thinking “OMG-if-I-do-that-no-one-will-ever-talk-to-me-again-and-I’ll-be-cast-into-exile”
I think I’m probably going to go ahead and do it anyway. Perhaps I’ll dedicate my performance to Twisty 🙂
Yup that’s the thing aboug ‘cunt’. If you’re saying it’s the worst word ever, you’re also saying cunts are the worst thing ever. Think about it. (somebody made this exact same point I think on IBTP, or whatever it’s called now)
Personally I don’t really understand the whole fit of the vapours thing (but that’s just me, I’m just obscene). Cunt is a word with a respectable history, Samuel Pepys uses it. Get over it.
Like someone said over at IBTP re the c-word, “I guess not many have read Inga Muscio.”
And to quote Judith Butler:
If speech depends upon censorship, then the principle that one might seek to oppose is at once the formative principle of oppositional speech
But it also seems to me that there is a validity in challenging an argument. But if you challenge language all you’re ‘challenging’ is the meaning of a word. And since the ‘meanings’ of words are a)mutable and b)not consistent, you’re just arguing over what words mean.
I’d really like to ask the rad fem language police what they think they’re achieving. As I’ve said elsewhere, it seems that what they’re saying is that there’s no problem in putting forth ideas that others may find offensive, as long as you don’t use the wrong words. Which is just daft. Or even crazy.
We’d better ban Patsy Cline as well I think.
And Beyonce of course.
Thanks Polly and Cath.
I went and read the ‘contamination’ thing, and I actually learnt a lot. I’m ashamed to say I’m not at all well-informed about lesbian discourse, but that admission of privilege does facilitate the understanding that sometimes, lesbians (well, people, obviously) just need to express their frustration. It reminds me of the endless ‘Not ALL men…’ so endemic on CiF.
As for Cuntalinagate, I can understand the aversion to the word but I don’t share it enough to feel strongly about it (or to not use the word), so the whole thing felt quite academic to me. And I also thought it was a shame that someone as fucking brilliant as Twisty should have got that much flak over a single ‘error’.
Dedicating your performance to Twisty would be hilarious. 😀
Woah. Clearly I’m not too well-informed about HTML either.
Basically F, there’s a lot of shit stirring goes on. And IMNSHO most of the ‘calling out’ isn’t genuine at all, it’s just an attempt to assert superiority. But then I’m deeply cynical.
Contaminatedgate is still rumbling on BTW, (it turned into a internetz wide extravaganze as numerous others stuck their oar in) and I am still being called on to “apologise” and atone for my sins.
Shan’t.
And yes instead of “what about the poor menz” it was “what about the poor (ex) straight women”. Nice to see it’s that obvious to an ‘outsider’.
Cath – just out of curiosity, have you had any ‘scary’ moments since you started blogging/writing under your own name? Don’t get me wrong, the cross guy sounds unnerving enough, but I’m just wondering if you’ve noticed any obvious change since ‘coming out’ and gaining what (I’m guessing) is a higher profile? When you say you won’t be safe at certain events, is that based on experience or a perceived or suspected fear? I’m curious about the whole MRA thing. I said somewhere on here before that I had a vaguely-worded death threat from a F4J-style organisation, under my real name, which I didn’t take remotely seriously. Because people can and do say all kinds of shit anonymously, online or otherwise. It’s very easy. I’m wondering – genuinely – how it translates for you in real world experience.
I blog – and post relevantly – under my own name, which isn’t that hard to find. When I’m not sure about something, or when I want to discuss it, or when I’m thinking things through and looking to be challenged, I use this username. Not even sure why anymore. It’s like a ‘draft thoughts’ name. Anonymity has various uses.
Good luck with your performance.
“The women at Arooo have both used other screen names before pre-this-version-of-Arooo, as bloggers. They wrote before under other incarnations of themselves iow. Why would they or anyone do that?”
There are a number of reasons a woman may change her screen name and some of them could have to do with changes in her off line life.
Presenting one negative possibility without considering any others is a way to express an opinion and not a real attempt to examine behavior. IMO that makes Heart’s comment a smear tactic and one with potential to harm the AROOO bloggers.
I have always blogged anonymously. I think initially it was because I lacked confidence, wasn’t sure I should be blogging and so it was safest to do it that way and see how it went.
I stuck with it – it means I am safer, I can write what I wish and I can write about very different things on the blog to the kind of things I write about for work without anyone thinking is odd or that there is a conflict of interest.
But I do know a certain number of my regular readers (I have met them as a result of the blog) and that does make it feel a bit different and probably means I am nowhere near as safe as I kid myself I am.
I don’t really care though whether anyone thinks of me more or less highly because I am anonymous. I avoid bloggy politics and pettinesses – there are enough of those in the Real World, it’s nice to escape them for a while.
I think the Arooo bloggers are quite capable of alienating people on their own actually.
Bet yer MRA readers find all this stuff endless amusing though Cath.
Should be endlessly
“Well all I’m going to say Amy, is that if you have the choice to do something, you also have the choice not to do it.
So we shouldn’t assume that people who decide not to do something haven’t made a choice also.”
Translate into French and that would be the real deal.
In answer to DamageDoor, I have been with Cath to a number of marches and events. At all of these she has been recognised by readers of cif. Most of the time people stop her asking “Are you Cath Elliott?” and is mostly followed with glowing praise for her writing. Sometimes its a look or nod of the head in acknowledgement of who she is, not overtly negative but ok. Other times its been cif posters who do post from an MRA and pro prostitution perspective who have wanted to discuss her writing, their perspective and their allegedly witty contributions on cif. Cath is always friendly and polite to the people who stop her in the street, as evidenced by her being polite to the pro lifer outside her workplace but it can be disconcerting and a number of us now ensure she is not left alone at open events just in case.
Thanks, Jemima. All else aside, that sounds incredibly wearing. Maybe it’s a bit like the whole ‘going up to a doctor at a party and talking about the crick in your elbow’ thing. Just because, as a journalist, you’ve written about certain things, it doesn’t mean you’re there 24/7 to talk about them, like some kind of sociological agony aunt or testing ground.
Unfortunately I only got a B Gregory. But il fait soleil so who cares.
Other times its been cif posters who do post from an MRA and pro prostitution perspective who have wanted to discuss her writing, their perspective and their allegedly witty contributions on cif. Cath is always friendly and polite to the people who stop her in the street,
What like” rhymes with pong”? In addition to being the most evol woman on the internetz I’m also fantastically rude IRL Cath if you want to take me on a demo. I’ll scare ’em.
Yes, Polly, rhymes with pong. I too have no problem with being fantastically rude to people or scaring people, but Cath forbids it. She really is too nice.
damagedoor – no it’s not wearing. It’s not like I go on demos and stuff all the time so it’s not exactly an everyday occurrence. As Jemima says, most of the time people are supportive, and after reading the comments I get on CiF it’s actually really nice to meet people who are positive about my work.
I just have to be conscious sometimes that there are some wierdos about as well, and that not everyone who comes up to me or who recognises me is necessarily on my side. I think what worries Jemima and others is that contrary to the image people have of me, I’m actually a really nice person, and I’ll happily chat to anyone and everyone.
Polly, you’re more than welcome to join me on a demo.
Hah, snap!
Do you think that’ll be my epitaph
“Here lies Cath Elliott
She was nice.”
“Woah. Clearly I’m not too well-informed about HTML either.”
I wouldn’t worry about it, gay rights gave us the flexible acronym,
so stick in a Q for Questioning, or Querying if we’re being pun-like.
Be a QHTML person
If Heart means to say (in Real Life Activism V Anonymous Internet Writing) that those who write anonymously can’t also be real life activists, I say wrong, wrong, wrong… because the Internet writer is more often than not, guided by passion, and it is passion that makes the real life activist.
I agree that the pseudonym is a layer of protection that you might need. Threatened bloggers know.
Bloggers beware, that they can be easily SLAPPed in the name of comments posted on their blogs. Resisting is not easy, as you can read at http://speakoutened.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/blogger-resisting-anton-piller-search/
I wish better luck to all bloggers, whether pseudonymous or not.