I'm saying that labeling it sexism isn't a useful conclusion at this point. Saying as much basically ends the investigation with no solution, in favor of a broad and arbitrary feminist agenda that may do little to actually address her specific problem.
There are an infinite number of poor conclusions that can be drawn logically from that bad assumption. I only picked the most likely response for a typical reader[1]. Whether it's a broad feminist agenda is mostly beside the point.
The point is that the discussion cannot stop with the sexism label. It's impossible to make progress when you conclude by blaming vague 19th century ideas about gender. There's nowhere to go from there. That's my problem with the article.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make. You assert that the discussion is immediately over once the word 'sexism' is mentioned, with no proof to back up this assertion.
Why does 'sexism' immediately and irrevocably equate to "vague 19th century ideas about gender"? What word would be more productive? Why?
> You assert that the discussion is immediately over once the word 'sexism' is mentioned, with no proof to back up this assertion.
Once people agree that sexism is the problem, useful discussion ends. You can still argue about whether it's sexism, or you can argue about solutions for solving sexism (see: Gender Studies). Neither one of those are likely to help you discover the real reasons why this particular woman found so much more success with a male pseudonym.
As for proof-- see most of this thread. Rather than discussing solutions or looking for explanations, it's mostly attempts to challenge the assumption I quoted.
> Why does 'sexism' immediately and irrevocably equate to "vague 19th century ideas about gender"? What word would be more productive? Why?
The article itself doesn't actually use the word. neilk used it as a fairly accurate summation of what was implied by the article.
She suggests that activism is the answer (and goes on to say she doesn't have the time for it). Activism against what? Apparently, according to the article, 19th century stigmas, which are defined circularly as whatever made people not hire her until she chose a male name.
I'm simply doing what most of the posters here did subconsciously and am challenging the assertion that "sexism is the problem," not because it's wrong, but because it's not meaningful.
Your points about the vagaries of activism and its targets are valid and I agree. However, you're still asserting that an entire line of conversation is impossible or without meaning due to the presence of, as far as I can tell, a single word.
I'd very much like to continue this thread but I'd ask you to please elaborate on your position or support it in some way or we'll descend into "does not!" "does too!" rather rapidly. Alternatively we can attempt to frame the discussion in another way that you find meaningful.
> Your points about the vagaries of activism and its targets are valid and I agree. However, you're still asserting that an entire line of conversation is impossible or without meaning due to the presence of, as far as I can tell, a single word.
Accepting generic sexism as the problem to solve is what ends useful discussion. It doesn't matter what specific words are used. James didn't use that word at all in the section I identified, but the point remains the same.
And to be more precise, when I say "end useful discussion" mean that until the bad assumption is retracted, progress towards real understanding and, consequently, good solutions, will be difficult.
Incidentally, the main point of the original article was to out the author as a woman. But the complaints about sexism are fairly obvious. My criticism was restricted to that and not intended to completely invalidate the entire post.
