A pseudonym will not protect you from sexual harassment. ...(see the blog post itself for lots of supporting links)
Online men pick on women because they are women. For example, Mike Arrington, a highly influential technology journalist, inexplicably insulted the topic (knitting) of a very successful web site aimed at women. And each week I receive many comments on Yahoo Finance rife with misogynist accusations about sex and intelligence that the male columnists at Yahoo Fiance do not endure nearly as often.
But is this a reason to hide? ... Women are more likely to be harassed in their office than online. Does it mean women shouldn't show up to the office? No. Women have gotten good at dealing with harassment. Probably because it's a fact of life. It starts when we are twelve years old and a guy whistles from a car as he drives by. And it looks to me like it never ends. We cannot stop this. At lest not today.
The best we can do is not suppress ourselves behind a pseudonym as a measure of protection. Otherwise, men get all the benefits of blogging and women don't, and we create an all-new Web 2.0 version of the gender divide.
Notably, even if your blogging alienates more people than it impresses, base rate considerations suggest that it's still overwhelmingly likely to be beneficial on net. Suppose, for example, that a Hiring Committee checking your blog has a massive 10% chance of being discouraged from hiring you, compared to a 2% chance of being encouraged to hire you when they otherwise wouldn't. The crucial observation is that the base rate is overwhelmingly weighted against hiring you to begin with: let's be optimistic and say that as many as 10% of your job applications will be successful by default. How does blogging change the default chances? Well, 1% (10% of the originally-inclined 10%) will be discouraged from hiring you, and 1.8% (i.e. 2% of the originally disinclined 90%) are shifted in your favour, for a net gain of .8%. So your overall success rate increases from 10% to 10.8%, even given the most unfriendly assumptions. It's easy to see that this happy effect is magnified if we are more pessimistic about our default chances, or less pessimistic about the ratio of impressed- to unimpressed blog readers. Plausibly, then, blogging is more professionally prudent than not. (Though anyone motivated by this reason alone would probably not do a very good job of it!)
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
2. No, though I'm always cognizant that a customer (if curious) could dig a little and find all of my postings now. As regards my work, I'm a bit circumspect online (unless I'm posting in company forums, which I do on occasion).
3. Nothing particularly negative. On the positive side, I tend to weigh my words a little more carefully. The old litmus test of "what would you like read back to you in court" has been altered somewhat to "what would like your children to read after you're gone" (or something along those lines).
posted by jquinby at 12:34 PM on October 6